Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 406 F.2d 473 - Thompson v. Peyton

Thompson v. Peyton’s Empirical Analysis

406 F.2d 473 · 1968

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
states following
February 1982
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently February 1982 · most notably Eaton v. Wyrick (1975), United States Ex Rel. Burton Graham, Relator-Appellant v. Vincent R. Mancusi, Warden, Attica State Prison, and the State of New York (1972)

13 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

290196819701980decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · United States v. Wade · Stovall v. Denno · Schmerber v. State of California · Robert J. Grundler and Joseph L. Jelly 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “* * * If fhe facts were sufficiently well developed at trial that the state appellate court can rule upon the issues presented without the necessity of further factual development, the issues may be considered to have been properly presented on appeal. If, on the other hand, it is necessary that an evidentiary hearing be held before a definitive ruling can be made on the merits of the issues, they are not considered to have been properly before the appellate court for decision and, therefore, it is necessary that resort be had to a collateral proceeding for proper development of the claims. In such a case, where the state provides an adequate and available method for bringing the necessary collateral attack on the conviction, Ganger requires that the state remedies must be pursued and utilized before a federal court will consider the merits of a habeas corpus petition in which the same contentions are raised.”
    2 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.