Lindner v. Wyrick’s Empirical Analysis
644 F.2d 724 · 1981
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably Gilmore v. Armontrout (1988), United States v. Michelsen (1998)
37 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 · Santobello v. New York · MacHibroda v. United States · Santoni v. United States · Yi Au Lau v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[R]ule 27.26 does not necessarily and absolutely foreclose a state court from entertaining a second or successive post-conviction motion. Therefore, the requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b) that available state remedies be exhausted prior to the consideration of federal ha-beas corpus claims will not be disregarded without some indication in the state record that further state proceedings would be futile.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(c) Form and Sufficiency of Motion. A motion to vacate a sentence must be submitted on a form substantially in compliance with the form appended hereto. The motion shall include every ground known to the prisoner for vacating, setting aside, or correcting his conviction and sentence. The prisoner shall verify the correctness of the motion, including the fact that he has recited all claims known to him. (d) Successive Motions. The sentencing court shall not entertain a second or successive motion for relief on behalf of the prisoner where the ground presented in the subsequent application was raised and determined adversely to the applicant on the prior application or where the ground presented is new but could have been raised in the prior motion pursuant to the provisions of subsection (c) of this Rule. The burden shall be on the prisoner to establish that any new ground raised in a second motion could not have been raised by him in the prior motion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where a defendant is aware that his plea is not in exchange for a particular sentence but hopes that the court will follow the recommendation, he is not misled so as to undermine the voluntariness of the plea.”
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.