Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 471 F.2d 604 - James F. Dempsey v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections

James F. Dempsey v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections’s Empirical Analysis

471 F.2d 604 · 1973

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
December 1997
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 1997 · most notably Goodwin v. Johnson (1997), Ventura v. Meachum (1992)

15 federal appellate · 1 district ·

190197319801990decided

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

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

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Townsend v. Sain · Jackson v. Denno · Williams 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(d) In any proceeding instituted in a Federal court by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue, made by a State court of competent jurisdiction in a proceeding to which the applicant for the writ and the State or-an officer or agent thereof were parties, evidenced by a written finding, written opinion, or other reliable and adequate written indicia, shall be presumed to be correct, * * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]f the state court did not articulate the constitutional standards applied, the district court may presume that the state court applied correct findings, in the absence of evidence that an incorrect standard was applied.”
    1 later decision 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.