Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 469 F.2d 17 - Rivera v. Concepcion

Rivera v. Concepcion’s Empirical Analysis

469 F.2d 17 · 1972

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
3
states following
June 1991
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 1991 · most notably Rheuark v. Shaw (1980), Burkett v. Cunningham (1987)

14 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

160197219801990decided

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 Dixon v. Florida · Odsen v. Moore · 322 F. Supp. 784 - United States Ex Rel. Keating v. Bensinger · Morgan v. Tennessee

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

  1. “‘Nor is [the past delay] to be overcome by a present exercise of diligence and treated as if it had not occurred. Any such rule would mean that defendant may be freely given improper consideration until the system ... [is] caught out_’ [T]he view that a rule of exoneration by state expedition initiated only after a federal court has blown the due process whistle would be unwise. Equally unwise, however, would be a rule that ignored any attempts by a state to remedy its procedural oversight once a petition for habeas corpus was filed. If the former rule deprives federal habeas corpus of any sanction, the latter deprives states of any incentive to remedy grievous wrongs at the earliest moment.... [I]n this delicate area of comity, bright line rules are not the answer. The objective is not for one judicial system to score points against the other, but to assure expeditious justice to individuals and to retain all incentives for both the state and federal systems to labor toward that end.”
    2 later decisions 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.