Burns v. Ohio’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
192 federal appellate · 46 district · 235 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 720 later decisions (100 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2018 · most notably Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Lewis Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Casey (1996)
192 federal appellate · 46 district · 235 state decisions — followed in 36 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Mansfield Ry Co v. Swan · Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Hawthorne · Lane v. Wilson
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 720 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(T)he State argues that petitioner received one appellate review of his conviction in Ohio, while in Griffin, Illinois had left the defendant without any judicial review of his conviction. This is a distinction without a difference for, as Griffin holds, once the State chooses to establish appellate review in criminal cases, it may not foreclose indigents from access to any phase of that procedure because of their poverty.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[O]nce the State chooses to establish appellate review in criminal cases, it may not foreclose indigents from access to any phase of that procedure because of their poverty.... This principle is no less applicable where the State has afforded an indigent defendant access to the first phase of its appellate procedure but has effectively foreclosed access to the second phase of that procedure solely because of his indigency.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“indigent’s (appeal) will be less meritorious than those of other defendants.”
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.