Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 430 U.S. 372 - Swain v. Pressley

Swain v. Pressley’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

912
cited by 912 later decisions
27
cited 27 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

327 federal appellate · 120 district · 75 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 912 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983), United States v. Frady (1982)

327 federal appellate · 120 district · 75 state decisions — followed in 13 states

2780197719801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedPressley v. Swain (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Fay v. Noia · Stone v. Powell · Hill v. United States · Crowell v. Benson

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

  1. “the substitution of a collateral remedy which is neither inadequate nor ineffective to test the legality of a person's detention does not constitute a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.”
    24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
    23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[an] application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section shall not be entertained by ... any Federal ... court if it appears ... that the Superior Court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
    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.