Maggitt v. Wyrick’s Empirical Analysis
533 F.2d 383 · 1976
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 12 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently September 2003 · most notably Wallace v. Al Lockhart (1983), State v. Miranda (1978)
56 federal appellate · 12 district · 5 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chambers v. Mississippi · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Richardson v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc. · School Board of Richmond v. State Board of Education · Falk v. Brennan
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'gross', Taylor v. Minnesota, 466 F.2d 1119 , 1121 (8th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 956 [93 S.Ct. 1425, 35 L.Ed.2d 689] (1973), 'conspicuously prejudicial', United States ex rel. Cannon v. Maroney, 373 F.2d 908 , 910 (3d Cir.1967), or otherwise of such magnitude that it fatally infected the trial and failed to afford petitioner the fundamental fairness which is the essence of due process. Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219 , 236 [62 S.Ct. 280, 86 L.Ed. 166] (1941).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[Q]uestions relating to the admissibility of evidence are matters of state law and generally do not give rise to constitutional errors which are subject to redress in federal habeas corpus cases.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Harrison v. Dahm · Snethen v. Nix“(O)rdinarily habeas corpus being a collateral attack is not considered to be a proper remedy for correcting errors in trial procedure. . . . It is only where the trial errors or irregularities infringe upon a specific constitutional protection or are so prejudicial as to amount to a denial of due process that a justiciable federal issue is presented in a habeas corpus proceeding. Atwell v. State of Arkansas, 426 F.2d 912, 915 (8th Cir. 1970), cited in, e. g., Ball v. Wyrick, 547 F.2d 78 (8th Cir. 1977); Hogan v. State of Nebraska, 535 F.2d 458 (8th Cir. 1976); Maggitt v. Wyrick, 533 F.2d 383 (8th Cir. 1976).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.