Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 400 F.2d 94 - Eldridge v. Crouse

Eldridge v. Crouse’s Empirical Analysis

400 F.2d 94 · 1968

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
June 1982
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1982

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

20196819701980decided

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

Relies on Brown v. Crouse · Jesse Lee Brown v. S. H. Crouse, Warden Kansas State Penitentiary · State v. Eldridge · William Nay Wood v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden · Tilford v. Page

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

  1. ““Under the Kansas statute and rules, the post conviction court is empowered to hold an evidentiary hearing and to otherwise develop the facts as they relate directly to the constitutional issues there raised. Thus a record may be made and it may include facts not theretofore detailed. The record, as compared to the initial trial record, may be enlarged and the hearing directed specifically to the issues at hand. The state court thus has broad powers to direct the hearing in a manner and direction which will provide a complete factual background for the constitutional issues. A post conviction hearing is often of great consequence to the parties for several reasons. One reason is that much of consequence may have happened during the time which has elapsed between the trial and the post conviction hearing, no matter how long this may have been in months and years. Certain facts may have been overlooked before and other facts may have become much more significant by reason of new decisions on points of constitutional law. These and other reasons are the basis for affording the remedy of collateral attack on judgments.” 395 F.2d at 756 .”
    1 later decision 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.