McCown v. Callahan’s Empirical Analysis
726 F.2d 1 · 1984
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Joseph A. Puleio v. George A. Vose, Jr., Etc. (1987), Davis v. Allsbrooks (1985)
35 federal appellate · 8 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wainwright v. Sykes · Griffin v. California · Stone v. Powell · Cupp v. Naughten
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) the state in fact has a 'contemporaneous objection' rule; 2) the state enforces and does not waive the rule; and 3) the defendant fails to show both 'cause' for and 'prejudice' from, not having complied with the rule.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If federal habeas courts were too ready to find that state “miscarriage of justice” review constitutes “waiver” of the state’s procedural rules, the state either would have to convert what is often a speedy reviewing task into a full scale detailed examination of federal law or it would have to abandon “miscarriage of justice” review altogether. The latter alternative seems highly undesirable. The former conflicts with the theory of Wainwright. That is to say, a state’s efforts to stop gross miscarriages of justice should not suddenly force it to grapple with complex federal issues that its procedural rules would otherwise lawfully bar.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“no indication that the court researched, examined in depth, or intended to rely upon, federal law in the area.”
2 later decisions 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.