Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 399 U.S. 224 - Nelson v. George

Nelson v. George’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

355
cited by 355 later decisions
22
cited 22 times by the Supreme Court
21
states following
October 2020
most recently cited

128 federal appellate · 15 district · 84 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 355 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2020 · most notably Picard v. Connor (1971), Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky (1973)

128 federal appellate · 15 district · 84 state decisions — followed in 21 states

2160197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedGeorge v. Nelson (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Jones v. Cunningham · Peyton v. Rowe · Royall · Hoffman v. Blaski · McNally v. Hill

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

  1. “A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. 14 An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require that sister States enforce a foreign penal judgment”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the proper treatment for habeas corpus claims such as those involv[ing] . . . challenge[s] in the California courts to the validity [of a] North Carolina conviction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.