McCafferty v. Solem’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably State v. Floody (1992), Lykken v. Class (1997)
2 federal appellate · 27 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 Linkletter v. Walker · Caldwell v. Mississippi · Ake v. Oklahoma · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · United States v. Mazurie
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The remedy of post-conviction habeas corpus is restricted by the provisions of SDCL 21-27-16 and the prior decisions of this court. The statutory provisions were fairly well summarized in our decision, State v. Erickson, 80 S.D. 639 , 129 N.W.2d 712 (1964), wherein we pointed out that, since the remedy is in the nature of a collateral attack upon a final judgment, the scope of review in habeas corpus proceedings is limited. As we said: ‘habeas corpus can be used only to review (1) whether the court had jurisdiction of the crime and the person of the defendant; (2) whether the sentence was authorized by law; and (3) in certain cases, whether an incarcerated defendant has been deprived of basic constitutional rights.’ Id., 80 S.D. at 645 , 129 N.W.2d at 715 . See also Goodroad v. Solem, 406 N.W.2d 141 (S.D.1987). Habeas corpus is not a proper remedy to correct irregular procedures, rather, habeas corpus reaches only jurisdictional error. Id. 406 N.W.2d at 143 ; SDCL 21-27-16. For purposes of habeas corpus, constitutional violations in a criminal case deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Goodroad, 406 N.W.2d at 143 ; Podoll v. Solem, 408 N.W.2d 759 (S.D.1987).... Further, we may not upset the habeas court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. SDCL 15-6-52(a); Satter v. Solem, 422 N.W.2d 425 (S.D.1988).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lee v. Delano · Satter v. Solem“[Ojne witness may not testify as to another witnesses’ credibility or truth-telling capacity because such testimony would invade the province of the jury to determine the credibility of a witness.... Yet, ... ‘[a]n expert may testify as to certain characteristics of abused children and may even compare those characteristics to actions of a particular victim.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Koepsell“In State v. One 1966 Pontiac Auto, 270 N.W.2d 362 (S.D.1978), we established the following criteria to determine whether a particular decision should be given retrospective effect: ‘(1) The purpose of the decision, (2) reliance on the prior rule of law, and (3) the effect upon the administration of justice.’ Id. at 365 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cowell v. Leapley
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.