Allen v. Duckworth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We can assume, as a number of cases have held, though none in this circuit, e.g. Cody v. Henderson, 936 F.2d 715, 718-19 (2d Cir.1991); Coe v. Thurman, supra, 922 F.2d at 530 , that excessive delay in the processing of a criminal defendant’s state appeal can be a denial of due process of law. The defendant has no federal constitutional right to an appeal, Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 611 , 94 S.Ct. 2437, 2444 , 41 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974), but a state is not permitted with one hand to grant such a right and with the other to take it away in an arbitrary fashion, as by denying an indigent a free transcript of the trial, Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 18 , 76 S.Ct. 585, 590 , 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956), or preventing a prisoner from filing a timely notice of appeal, Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252, 257 , 79 S.Ct. 1164, 1168 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1209 (1959)—or simply refusing to decide an appeal. So at least a number of courts have held, and we would have no occasion in this case to quarrel with them even if we were disposed to disagree, since the petitioner must lose in any event.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 864 F. Supp. 839 - Curry v. Pucinski · 917 F. Supp. 1238 - United States Ex Rel. Green v. Washington

2. “Habeas corpus is not a compensatory remedy. The object is not to make whole someone who has suffered a loss; it is to determine whether someone is being confined in violation of basic norms of legality. It is conceivable that delay in processing an imprisoned defendant’s appeal might make his continued imprisonment unlawful, but once the delay ends with an appellate decision not claimed to be invalid by reason of delay ... any ground for ordering him released evaporates.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 236 F. Supp. 2d 412 - Douglas v. Hendricks · Jackson v. Duckworth

3. “There is a nice question, unnecessary to decide, whether exhaustion of state remedies is required when a prisoner is complaining about inordinate delay in the state court system. Requiring exhaustion would add another layer of delay — would make the requirement of exhaustion literally exhausting, and might even threaten an infinite regress. It seems a case for invoking the exception to the exhaustion requirement when there are “circumstances rendering [state corrective] process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b). Many cases so hold; illustrative are Harris v. Champion, 938 F.2d 1062, 1068-69 (10th Cir.1991), and Coe v. Thurman, 922 F.2d 528, 530-31 (9th Cir.1990). We have taken no position, Lane v. Richards, 957 F.2d 363, 365 (7th Cir.1992), and need not do so today, since if the case was moot the district court lost jurisdiction whether or not the petitioner was excused from seeking a state remedy for the state supreme court’s delay.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 917 F. Supp. 1238 - United States Ex Rel. Green v. Washington