Chess v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably State v. Eldredge (1989), Codianna v. Morris (1983)
2 federal appellate · 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 Boykin v. Alabama · North Carolina v. Pearce · In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites · Estelle v. Williams · Carnley v. Cochran
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“by imposing on a defendant who demonstrates the error of his conviction the risk that he may be penalized with a harsher sentence for having done so.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Samora · State v. Samora“'[tJhe prejudicial effect that flows from a defendant's appearing before a jury in identifiable prison garb is not measurable, and it is so potentially prejudicial as to create a substantial risk of fundamental unfairness in a criminal trial”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The function of a writ of habeas corpus as a post-conviction remedy is to provide a means for collaterally attacking convictions when they are so constitutionally flawed that they result in fundamental unfairness and to provide for collateral attack of sentences not authorized by law. The general judicial policy favoring the finality of judgments cannot, therefore, always prevail against an attack by a writ of habeas corpus. As important as finality is, it does not have a higher value than constitutional guarantees of liberty. Protection of life and liberty from unconstitutional procedures is of greater importance than is res judicata... . "[H]owsoever desirable it may be to adhere to the rules, the law should not be so blind and unreasoning that where an injustice has resulted the [defendant] should be without a remedy." This Court has frequently held that while habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal, a conviction may nevertheless be challenged by collateral attack .. . where an obvious injustice or a substantial and prejudicial denial of a constitutional right has occurred, irrespective of whether an appeal has been taken.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dunn v. Cook
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.