Pruitt v. Hutto’s Empirical Analysis
574 F.2d 956 · 1978
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 2001
12 federal appellate · 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Neil v. Biggers · Townsend v. Sain · Manson v. Brathwaite · Pruitt v. Hutto
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In ruling on a § 2254 petition the district court, of course, has the power to compel the production of the complete state court record. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 , 319, 83 S.Ct. 745 , [760] 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963). Indeed such a record is ordinarily indispensible. Id. However, the state is not required to perform the impossible. See United States v. Pate, 371 F.2d 405 , 407 (7th Cir.1967).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mitchell v. Wyrick
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.