Summers v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 2023
10 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 Codianna v. Morris · State v. Gibbons · Chess v. Smith · Wells v. Shulsen · Lancaster v. Cook
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.... This Court has frequently held that while habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal, a conviction may nevertheless be challenged by collateral attack in “unusual circumstances,” that is, where an obvious injustice or a substantial and prejudicial denial of a constitutional right has occurred, irrespective of whether an appeal has been taken. In fact, this Court has frequently addressed and resolved the merits of claims asserted in petitions for writs of habeas corpus even though the issues raised were known or should have been known at the time of conviction or initial appeal .... It follows, and it has long been our law, that a procedural default is not always determinative of a collateral attack on a conviction where it is alleged that the trial was not conducted within the bounds of basic fairness or in harmony with constitutional standards.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wagstaff v. Barnes“[i]n Gibbons, the Supreme Court determined that a defendant could not simply appeal a conviction based on a guilty plea. Rather, defendant must first file a motion to withdraw [his] plea, giving the court who took the plea the first chance to consider defendant's arguments. If the motion is denied, defendant could then appealnot from the conviction per se, but from the denial of the motion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“an evidentiary hearing must ordinarily be held unless the record of a prior hearing shows petitioner is clearly not entitled to relief”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Walker
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.