Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 379 F.2d 709 - Ganger v. Peyton

Ganger v. Peyton’s Empirical Analysis

379 F.2d 709 · 1967

Citation profile

105
cited by 105 later decisions
15
states following
September 2023
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 9 district · 46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably 19 Cal. 3d 255 - People v. Superior Court (Greer) (1977), 14 Cal. 4th 580 - People v. Eubanks (1996)

18 federal appellate · 9 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 15 states

3601967197019801990200020102020decided

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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Fay v. Noia · Tumey v. State of Ohio · Mooney v. Holohan · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina

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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Because of the prosecuting attorney's own self-interest in the civil litigation * * * he was not in a position to exercise fairminded judgment with respect to (1) whether to decline to prosecute, (2) whether to reduce the charge to a lesser degree of assault, or (3) whether to recommend a suspended sentence or other clemency.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"Although conceding that the prosecuting attorney should not have represented [the defendant's] wife in private litigation at a time when he was charged with the duty to fairly prosecute or otherwise fairly dispose of the criminal charge against [the defendant], the State contends that the improper conduct resulted in no harm to [the defendant]. We cannot so assume. It is true that although charged with a serious assault that could have resulted in imprisonment to the extent of twenty years, [the defendant] was convicted of a lesser assault and sentenced to only six months. But we do not know and cannot now ascertain what would have happened if the prosecuting attorney had been free to exercise the fair discretion which he owed to all persons charged with crime in his court. . . . We think the conduct of this prosecuting attorney in attempting at once to serve two masters, the people of the Commonwealth and the wife of [the defendant] violates the requirement of fundamental fairness assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." (citations omitted) (footnotes omitted)”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Seldom does the ineffectiveness of counsel appear on the face of the trial record without the necessity of developing the facts in respect to counsel’s conduct in a supplemental proceeding. Denial of relief on the appeal does not mean that consideration of Ganger’s contention is foreclosed in the state courts. Ganger should have filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of King George County alleging ineffective representation. . . . ” 9”
    3 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.