Thompson v. Linn’s Empirical Analysis
583 F.2d 739 · 1978
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 2018
6 federal appellate ·
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 Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Townsend v. Sain · Brown v. Allen · Patterson v. United States · Castor v. United States
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the State court hearing; (2) that the factfinding procedure employed by the State court was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing; (3) that the material facts were not adequately developed at the State court hearing; (4) that the State court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter or over the person of the applicant in the State court proceeding; (5) that the applicant was an indigent and the State court, in deprivation of his constitutional right, failed to appoint counsel to represent him in the State court proceeding; (6) that the applicant did not receive a full, fair, and adequate hearing in the State court proceeding; or (7) that the applicant was otherwise denied due process of law in the State court proceeding; (8) or unless that part of the record of the State court proceeding in which the determination of such factual issue was made, pertinent to a determination of the sufficiency of the evidence to support such factual determination, is produced as provided for hereinafter, and the Federal court on a consideration of such part of the record as a whole concludes that such factual determination is not fairly supported by the record.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fike v. James“There must have been ...: (a) a hearing on the merits of a factual issue, (b) made by a state court of competent jurisdiction, (c) in a proceeding to which the applicant and the state were parties, (d) evidenced by a written finding, opinion, or other reliable and adequate written indicia.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cumbie v. Singletary“reconstruct the findings of the state court, 'either because (the state trial judge's) view of the facts is plain from his opinion, or because of other indicia'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ford v. Davis
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.