Honeycutt v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis
612 F.2d 36 · 1979
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Vasquez v. Hillery (1986), Michael A. Mayola v. State of Alabama (1980)
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Johnson v. Zerbst · Gideon v. Wainwright · Burgett v. Texas · Barrett 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is . . . important that reasonable diligence be required [of a coram nobis petitioner] in order that litigation may one day be at an end.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“before the circumstances prejudicial to the state occurred.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“After bringing several ... petitions in the New York courts, Honeycutt challenged the use of the Oklahoma conviction as a predicate felony in a Coram nobis application, which was denied by the Supreme Court, New York County, on March 3, 1976. On August 5, 1976, leave to appeal was denied by the Appellate Division, First Department, as was leave to appeal from the Appellate Division’s ruling on September 23, 1976, by the New York Court of Appeals. Subsequently, [on May 16, 1978] Honeycutt commenced the instant habeas corpus proceeding, claiming that the most ancient of his convictions the 1949 Oklahoma conviction was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and that, therefore, he should not have been sentenced as a fourth felony offender in 1954.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.