Hensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial Dist., Santa Clara Cty.’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
553 federal appellate · 177 district · 145 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,416 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Murray v. Carrier (1986), Preiser v. Rodriguez (1973)
553 federal appellate · 177 district · 145 state decisions — followed in 22 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
reviewedHensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial District Santa Clara County (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Townsend v. Sain · Fay v. Noia · Brown v. Allen · Carafas v. J · Jones v. Cunningham
Cited together with Jones v. Cunningham · Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Maleng v. Cook · Fay v. Noia
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 1,416 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The custody requirement of the habeas corpus statute is designed to preserve the writ of habeas corpus as a remedy for severe restraints on individual liberty. Since habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy whose operation is to a large extent uninhibited by traditional rules of finality and federalism, its use has been limited to cases of special urgency, leaving more conventional remedies for cases in which the restraints on liberty are neither severe nor immediate.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“consistently rejected interpretations of the habeas corpus statute that would suffocate the writ in stifling formalisms or hobble its effectiveness with the manacles of arcane and scholastic procedural requirements.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“released on bail or on his own recognizance pending trial ... must still contend with the requirements of the exhaustion doctrine if he seeks habeas corpus relief in the federal courts”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.