Glover v. McMurray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate ·

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

1. “`Constitutional insubstantiality' for this purpose has been equated with such concepts as `essentially fictitious,' Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S., at 33 ; [82 S.Ct.] (549) [ 7 L.Ed.2d 512 ;] `wholly insubstantial,' ibid.; `obviously frivolous,' Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 216 U.S. 285, 288 , [ 30 S.Ct. 326, 327 , 54 L.Ed. 482 ] (1910); and `obviously without merit,' Ex parte Poresky, 290 U.S. 30, 32 , [ 54 S.Ct. 3, 4-5 , 78 L.Ed. 152 ] (1933). The limiting words `wholly' and `obviously' have cogent legal significance. In the context of the effect of prior decisions upon the substantiality of constitutional claims, those words import that claims are constitutionally insubstantial only if the prior decisions inescapably render the claims frivolous; previous decisions that merely render claims of doubtful or questionable merit do not render them insubstantial for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2281 . A claim is insubstantial only if `”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 387 F. Supp. 630 - Vail v. Quinlan

2. “its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 387 F. Supp. 630 - Vail v. Quinlan