Davis v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
647 federal appellate · 82 district · 189 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,339 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Coleman v. Thompson (1991), Wainwright v. Sykes (1977)
647 federal appellate · 82 district · 189 state decisions — followed in 29 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedDavis v. United States (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · Haines v. Kerner · Fay v. Noia · Sanders v. United States
Cited together with Francis v. Henderson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Fay v. Noia · United States v. Frady · Johnson v. Zerbst
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 1,339 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The waiver provisions of Rule 12(b)(2) are operative only with respect to claims of defects in the institution of criminal proceedings. If its time limits are followed, inquiry into an alleged defect may be concluded and, if necessary, cured before the court, the witnesses, and the parties have gone to the burden and expense of a trial. If defendants were allowed to flout its time limitations, on the other hand, there would be little incentive to comply with its terms when a successful attack might simply result in a new indictment prior to trial. Strong tactical considerations would militate in favor of delaying the raising of the claim in hopes of an acquittal, with the thought that if those hopes did not materialize, the claim could be used to upset an otherwise valid conviction at a time when reprosecution might well be difficult.”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Failure by a party to raise defenses or objections or to make requests which must be made prior to trial ... shall constitute waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We believe that the necessary effect of the congressional adoption of Rule 12(b)(2) is to provide that a claim once waived pursuant to that Rule may not later be resurrected, either in the criminal proceedings or in federal habeas, in the absence of the showing of “cause” which that Rule requires. We therefore hold that the waiver standard expressed in Rule 12(b)(2) governs an untimely claim of grand jury discrimination, not only during the criminal proceeding, but also later on collateral review.”
14 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.