Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 43 ALAAPP 188 - Ex parte Davis

Ex parte Davis’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
May 1990
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 1990

10 state decisions

401965197019801990decided

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 Escobedo v. Illinois · Mallory v. United States · People v. Stewart · Case v. State of Nebraska · Duncan v. State

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

  1. ““ * * * and the sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive petition for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner. A successive petition on different grounds will not be entertained unless good cause is shown why the new ground or grounds were not known or could not have been reasonably ascertained when the first petition was heard.””
    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.