Robert Hawkins v. John E. Bennett, Warden, Iowa State Penitentiary’s Empirical Analysis
423 F.2d 948 · 1970
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2009 · most notably Day v. McDonough (2006), Davis v. Adult Parole Authority (1979)
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
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 Gideon v. Wainwright · Townsend v. Sain · Kercheval v. United States · Illinois Power Co. v. Local Union No. 51, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · Ex parte Virginia
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(I) the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the state hearing; (2) the state factual determination is not fairly supported by the record as a whole; (3) the fact-finding procedure employed by the state court was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing; (4) there is a substantial allegation of newly discovered evidence; (5) the material facts were not adequately developed at the statecourt hearing; or (6) for any reason it appears that the state trier of fact did not afford the habeas applicant a full and fair fact hearing.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Court should have át least satisfied itself that all that could with reason be done, had in fact been done, either through live or deposition testimony before dismissing this petition. See Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156 [, 77 S.Ct. 1127 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1253 ] (1957). As the court stated in Hawkins, supra: We wish to add (although it should be obvious) that nothing stated herein is intended to indicate an opinion on the merits of appellant’s claims. On remand, appellant will, of course, have the burden of proving his allegations. We also recognize that the passage of time between appellant’s conviction and his request for relief renders the gathering of evidence difficult. We do not condone the long delay. However, if appellant’s constitutional rights were violated in 1926, the passage of 44 years does not serve to cure the wrong. And he, just as the man recently convicted, must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to prove his claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“each of the contentions raised by appellant was constitutionally protected at the time of his conviction.”
1 later decision 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.