Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 410 F.2d 205 - Albert Charles Wessling v. John E. Bennett, Warden

Albert Charles Wessling v. John E. Bennett, Warden’s Empirical Analysis

410 F.2d 205 · 1969

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
3
states following
March 2001
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently March 2001 · most notably Rummel v. Estelle (1978), Goodloe v. Parratt (1979)

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions

22019691970198019902000decided

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 Townsend v. Sain · Oyler v. Boles · Snowden v. Hughes · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · Hurtado v. People of the State of California

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

  1. “`to relief on federal habeas corpus only upon proving that [his] detention violates ... fundamental liberties ... safeguarded against state action by the Federal Constitution.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““We are not at liberty to conjecture that the trial court acted under an interpretation of the state law different from that which we might adopt and then set up our own interpretation as a basis for declaring that due process has been denied. We cannot treat a mere error of state law, if one occurred, as a denial of due process; otherwise, every erroneous decision by a state court on state law would come here as a federal constitutional question.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.