Nicholas Cappetta v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida’s Empirical Analysis
406 F.2d 1238 · 1969
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently August 1994 · most notably Fox v. Kelso (1990), Anderson v. Smith (1984)
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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 Carafas v. J · Peyton v. Rowe · Parker v. Ellis · United States v. J. E. Lavallee · Wittner v. United States
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * (Carafas) expressly states “the federal habeas corpus statute requires that the applicant must be ‘in custody’ when the application for habeas corpus is filed * * * ”. The instant case presents a situation somewhat different in that the petition was filed while the petitioner was ‘in custody’ but for another offense and on a separate sentence which is not being attacked.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mason v. Anderson · Downey v. Cox“[T]he court has jurisdiction under the federal habeas statute ... to determine whether the relationship, as claimed, between the present confinement and the Dade County judgment [the expired conviction] is such as would result in the appellant receiving credit in some degree on the Hillsborough sentence [the sentence of confinement] if he should prevail on the merits of his petition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fox v. Kelso“shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Escobedo v. Estelle
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.