In Re Dixon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

75 federal appellate · 234 state decisions

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

1. “[H]abeas corpus cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal, and, in the absence of special circumstances constituting an excuse for failure to employ that remedy, the writ will not he where the claimed errors could have been, but were not, raised upon a timely appeal from a judgment of conviction.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fields v. Calderon · Dull v. Pickett

2. “We must consider whether, regardless of the lack of a satisfactory excuse for the failure to appeal, we may properly pass upon petitioner's claims relating to forced confession and unlawful search and seizure. Petitioner argues that a failure to appeal will not prevent a resort to habeas corpus when, as here, fundamental constitutional rights are involved. His contentions, however, depend entirely on his version of what occurred, and, as we shall see, there was ample evidence from which the trial court could have found that there was no violation of his rights. It is, of course, an established rule that habeas corpus may not be used instead of an appeal to review determinations of fact made upon conflicting evidence after a fair trial. [Citations.] Likewise, the writ is not available to correct errors or irregularities relating to ascertainment of the facts when such errors could and should have been raised by appeal. [Citations.] The same principles should apply even though the alleged errors involving factual issues relate to an asserted denial of constitutional rights. [Citation.] It would obviously be improper to permit a collateral attack because of claimed errors in the determination of the facts after expiration of the time for appeal when evidence may have disappeared and witnesses may have become unavailable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 56 Cal. 2d 879 - In Re Harris

3. “.... .... .... .... . "... Likewise, petitioner's contentions that irrelevant evidence was erroneously admitted at his trial and that the prosecution was guilty of misconduct clearly could have been dealt with upon a timely appeal from the judgment of conviction, and such matters are not reviewable in this proceeding. ( In re Manchester, 33 Cal.2d 740, 743-744 [ 204 P.2d 881 ]; In re Lindley, 29 Cal.2d 709, 723-724 [ 177 P.2d 918 ].)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 61 Cal. 2d 500 - In Re Jackson