Bishop v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

cited by 32 later decisions

states following

October 2017

most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Boyd v. State (2003), 608 So. 2d 345 - Bishop v. State (1992)

32 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

Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Teague v. Lane · Cage v. Louisiana · Swansboro Country, Inc. v. Lumberman's Mortgage Co. · Brendale v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation

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

“"[i]f the court determines that the petition is not sufficiently specific [in violation of Rule 32.6(b)], or is precluded [under Rule 32.2, Ala. R.Crim. P.], or fails to state a claim, or that no material issue of fact or law exists which would entitle the petitioner to relief under this rule and that no purpose would be served by further proceedings. . . ."”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Shaw v. State · Saunders v. State
“' "Where a simple reading of the petition for post-conviction relief shows that, assuming every allegation of the petition to be true, it is obviously without merit or is precluded, the circuit court [may] summarily dismiss that petition.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Saunders v. State · McMillan v. State
“"Here, the petition was not `meritorious on its face' and an evidentiary hearing was not required. See Ex parte Boatwright, 471 So.2d 1257, 1258-59 (Ala.1985). In dealing with federal habeas corpus petitions, a court may dismiss a petition without a response from the United States Attorney. "`In circumstances such as this, when the petitioner's allegations are affirmatively contradicted by the record, an evidentiary hearing is not required. United States v. Guerra, 588 F.2d 519, 520 (5th Cir.1979); Holland v. United States, 406 F.2d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 1969). As a result, notice and an opportunity to respond need not be given to the United States Attorney. Rush v. United States, 559 F.2d 455, 459 (7th Cir.1977); Tremarco v. United States, 412 F.Supp. 550, 551 (D.N.J. 1976).' " United States v. Burroughs, 650 F.2d 595, 599 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1037 [ 102 S.Ct. 580 , 70 L.Ed.2d 483 ] (1981). Where a simple reading of a petition for post-conviction relief shows that, assuming every allegation of the petition is true, it is obviously without merit or is precluded, the circuit court should be permitted to summarily dismiss that petition without requiring a response from the district attorney."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Young v. State

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.