Peyton v. Rowe’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
777 federal appellate · 135 district · 319 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,929 later decisions (77 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably North Carolina v. Pearce (1969), Benton v. Maryland (1969)
777 federal appellate · 135 district · 319 state decisions — followed in 33 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
reviewedRowe v. Peyton (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Fay v. Noia · Brown v. Allen · Pate v. Robinson · Sheppard v. Maxwell
Cited together with McNally v. Hill · Jones v. Cunningham · Fay v. Noia · Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky · Carafas v. J
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 1,929 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Clearly, to the extent that the rule of McNally postpones plenary consideration of issues by the district courts, it undermines the character of the writ of habeas corpus as the instrument for resolving fact issues not adequately developed in the original proceedings. * * . * “McNally is also at odds with the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus in another respect. As noted above, a principal aim of the writ is to provide for swift judicial review of alleged unlawful restraints on liberty. Calendar congestion, considerations of federalism, see, e. g., Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S., at 415-420, 83 S.Ct. at 822; Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241 , [ 6 S.Ct. 734 ], 29 L.Ed. 868 (1886), and the exigencies of appellate review account for largely unavoidable delays in the processing of criminal cases. But the prematurity rule of McNally in many instances extends without practical justification the time a prisoner entitled to release must remain in confinement. Rowe and Thacker eventually may establish that the convictions they challenge were obtained in violation of the Constitution. If they do, each day they are incarcerated under those convictions while their cases are in the courts will be time that they might properly have enjoyed as free men. Common sense dictates that prisoners seeking habeas corpus relief after exhausting state remedies should be able to do so at the earliest practicable time. “ * * * Standing alone, the limitation of § 2241(c) (3) — that ‘[t]he writ of habeas corpus s”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] prisoner serving consecutive sentences is 'in custody' under any one of them ...”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t [habeas corpus] is not now and never has been a static, narrow, formalistic remedy; its scope has grown to achieve its grand purpose — the protection of individuals against erosion of their right to be free from wrongful restraints upon their liberty.”
6 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.