Calley v. Callaway’s Empirical Analysis
496 F.2d 701 · 1974
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Calley v. Callaway (1975), Dallo v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1985)
30 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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 Noyd v. Bond · Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. New Jersey Wood Finishing Co. · Johnston v. Marsh · Boyer v. City of Orlando
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Second: This applicant is incarcerated because he has been tried, convicted, and sentenced by a court of law. He now attacks his conviction in a collateral proceeding. It is obvious that a greater showing of special reasons for admission to bail pending review should be required in this kind of case than would be required in a case where applicant had sought to attack by writ of habeas corpus an incarceration not resulting from a judicial determination of guilt. Cf. Yanish v. Barber, 73 S.Ct. 1105 , 97 L.Ed. 1637 (1953). In this kind of case it is therefore necessary to inquire whether, in addition to there being substantial questions presented by the appeal, there is some circumstance making this application exceptional and deserving of special treatment in the interests of justice. See Benson v. California, 328 F.2d 159 (CA 9th Cir. 1964). The papers before me on this application indicate the existence of no such circumstance.’ Some examples of extraordinary circumstances are serious deterioration of the petitioner’s health while incarcerated, United States ex rel. Ackerman v. Pennsylvania, W.D.Pa.1955, 133 F.Supp. 627 , writ of mandamus denied; Johnston v. Marsh, 3 Cir., 1955, 227 F.2d 528 ; Woodcock v. Donnelly, 1 Cir., 1972, 470 F.2d 93 ; short sentences for relatively minor crimes so near completion that extraordinary action is essential to make collateral review truly effective. Noyd v. Bond, 1965, 395 U.S. 683, 689 , 89 S.Ct. 1876 , 23 L.Ed.2d 631 (all but two days o”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Bail should be granted to a military prisoner pending'postconviction habeas corpus review only when the petitioner has raised substantial constitutional claims upon which he has a high probability of success, and also when extraordinary or exceptional circumstances exist which make the grant of bail necessary to make the habeas remedy effective. See Aronson v. May, 1964, 85 S.Ct. 3 , 13 L.Ed.2d 6 (Douglas, J. on application for bail); Glynn v. Donnelly, 1 Cir., 1972, 470 F.2d 95 ; Woodcock v. Donnelly, 1 Cir., 1972, 470 F.2d 93 ; Benson v. California, 9 Cir., 1964, 328 F.2d 159 , cert. denied, 380 U.S. 951 , 85 S.Ct. 1086 , 13 L.Ed.2d 970 ; Boyer v. City of Orlando, 5 Cir., 1968, 402 F.2d 966, 968 ; Baker v. Sard, 1969, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 139 , 420 F.2d 1342 . 1”
3 later decisions 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.