United States ex rel. Hickey v. Jeffes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 15 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “But under Pennsylvania Law a general sentence will be upheld if there is any valid count sustaining it, despite the invalidity of one or more of the other underlying counts, so long as the sentence is, as here, within the prescribed statutory maximum for the valid conviction. Thus it may be that even if the unlicensed possession conviction is invalid, the Pennsylvania courts would not disturb the sentence. But it does not follow that habeas corpus relief is unavailable. Certainly we must presume, as did the Court in Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 , 88 S.Ct. 1889 , 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968), and Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354 , 77 S.Ct. 481 , 1 L.Ed.2d 393 (1957), that there are present and future collateral consequences, in addition to present custody, flowing from the invalid conviction. And while some form of custody may be deemed to be jurisdictional for federal habeas corpus, “the statute does not deny the federal courts power to fashion appropriate relief other than immediate release.” Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 66 , 88 S.Ct. 1549, 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968). As early as Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 , 61 S.Ct. 640 , 85 L.Ed. 1034 (1941), the Court held that a conviction could be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding even though petitioner would not be released if he prevailed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b) provides for “release from custody or other remedy.” See Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re the Denial of Private Detective License of Hackett

2. “the application of a settled principle of constitutional law would justify the reversal of a denial of habeas corpus relief, but the pro se applicant in applying for a certificate of probable cause did not articulate the settled ground with sufficient clarity. If a limited certificate could preclude consideration of the settled ground, it could force a panel of necessity to decide a novel or unsettled issue of constitutional law unnecessary.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sherman v. Scott

3. “An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding where the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court, unless the justice or judge who rendered the order or a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of probable cause.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Houston v. Mintzes