Sanders v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
2,740 federal appellate · 266 district · 832 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5,613 later decisions (153 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2025 · most notably Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), Williams v. Taylor (2000)
2,740 federal appellate · 266 district · 832 state decisions — followed in 41 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedSanders v. United States (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Townsend v. Sain · Fay v. Noia · Hill v. United States · Von Moltke v. Gillies
Cited together with Townsend v. Sain · Fay v. Noia · MacHibroda v. United States · Price v. Johnston · McCleskey v. Zant
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 5,613 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the same ground presented in the subsequent application was determined adversely to the applicant on the prior application, (2) the prior determination was on the merits, and (3) the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits of the subsequent application.”
107 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“although the ground of the new application was determined against him on the merits on a prior application, the ends of justice would be served by a redetermination of the ground.”
45 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f a prisoner deliberately withholds one of two grounds for federal collateral relief at the time of filing his first application, in the hope of being granted two hearings rather than one or for some other such reason, he may be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing on a second application presenting the withheld ground... .Nothing in the traditions of habeas corpus requires the federal courts to tolerate needless, piecemeal litigation, or to entertain collateral proceedings whose only purpose is to vex, harass, or delay.”
35 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.