Pugh v. Rainwater’s Empirical Analysis
483 F.2d 778 · 1973
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023 · most notably Gerstein v. Pugh (1975), Tarter v. Hury (1981)
26 federal appellate · 13 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Morrissey v. Brewer · Younger v. Harris · Mapp v. Ohio · Coolidge v. New Hampshire
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The validity of this practice, which permits the State Attorney to be the sole arbiter of probable cause, has always been the main issue in this case. "Not only does the present practice permit the State Attorney to block a preliminary hearing, it also allows him to overrule a determination of no probable cause made by a magistrate by refiling an information. Therefore the whole preliminary hearing system is really conditioned upon the desires of the State Attorney. If he files an information prior to the preliminary hearing, none will take place. If he files an information after a magistrate's detached and impartial determination of no probable cause, the accused may remain in jail until trial. "This practice cannot be reconciled with the constitutional requirements of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment and the fourth amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In each case enumerated in this Code, the person making the arrest shall without unnecessary delay take the person arrested before some magistrate.... The magistrate shall in clear language inform the person arrested of the accusation against him and of any affidavit filed therewith, of his right to have an attorney present during an interview at any time, of his right to request appointment of counsel, if he is indigent and cannot afford counsel, and of his right to have an examining trial. He shall also inform the person arrested that he is not required to make a statement and that any statement made by him may be used against him. The magistrate shall allow the person arrested reasonable time and opportunity to consult counsel and shall admit the person arrested to bail if allowed by law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e have never intimated that abstention is appropriate where there is no state court prosecution to be interfered with and where the plaintiff seeking relief in federal court has no alternative forum in which to raise his constitutional claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Luckey III v. Harris
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.