Evans v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2004
3 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 Gilmore v. Utah · United States ex rel. Sero v. Preiser · Weber v. Garza · 361 So. 2d 654 - Evans v. State · 361 So. 2d 666 - Evans 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Over the years, a small body of case law has developed around the question of when a `next friend' application is appropriate. Three principles, which control the resolution of the issue raised here, can be distilled from the precedents. First, the authority of one person to apply for a writ of habeas corpus for the release of another will be recognized only when the application for the writ establishes some reason or explanation, satisfactory to the court, showing: (1) why the detained person did not sign and verify the petition and (2) the relationship and interest of the would be `next-friend.' Second, individuals not licensed to practice law by the state may not use the `next friend' device as an artifice for the unauthorized practice of law. The `next friend' expedient, which on occasion may be essential to the efficacy of the `Great Writ,' may not be so abused as to unleash on the courts a quasi-professional group of lay writ writers who would seek to right all wrongs, both real and imagined. Third, when the application for habeas corpus filed by a would be `next friend' does not set forth an adequate reason or explanation of the necessity for resort to the `next friend' device, the court is without jurisdiction to consider the petition."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It was not intended that the writ of habeas corpus should be availed of, as matter of course, by intruders or uninvited meddlers, styling themselves next friends.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“); Wilson v. Dixon , 256 F.2d 536 , 538 (9th Cir. 1958) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.