Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Herman v. W Claudy’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
445 federal appellate · 40 district · 129 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 764 later decisions (52 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2015 · most notably Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Brady v. United States (1970)
445 federal appellate · 40 district · 129 state decisions — followed in 24 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Von Moltke v. Gillies · Betts v. Brady · Brown v. State of Mississippi · Chambers v. Florida · Walker v. Johnston
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 764 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * where a denial of these constitutional protections is alleged in an appropriate proceeding by factual allegations not patently frivolous or false on a consideration of the whole record, the proceeding should not be summarily dismissed merely because a state prosecuting officer files an answer denying some or all of the allegations.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a conviction following trial or on a plea of guilty based on a confession extorted by violence or by mental coercion is invalid under the Federal Due Process Clause.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When the petition in support of an application for habeas corpus reveals upon its face that it is defective as a matter of law, the habeas court may dismiss the application without a hearing. * * * Moreover, a hearing is not required when the habeas court has before it a full and uncontested record of state proceedings which furnishes all of the data necessary for a satisfactory determination of factual issues. * * * When, however, petitioner alleges that a guilty plea entered by him was the product of deceit, promise, or threat, and facts are specifically set forth which support that allegation and which create issues incapable of resolution by a simple examination of the files and records before the federal District Court, that court must grant the petitioner a hearing. Certainly, petitioner cannot be denied a hearing merely because the facts asserted by him are contradicted by the answer of the State's prosecuting officers, for it is this denial which creates the factual issue to be resolved.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.