Davis v. Marsh’s Empirical Analysis
876 F.2d 1446 · 1989
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2016
5 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 10 U.S.C. § 816 · 28 U.S.C. § 1259 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Younger v. Harris · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The reasons wé require state defendants to raise federal constitutional issues in the state courts apply with equal force to military defendants. Collateral review undermines the, finality of a court-martial as surely as it does that of a state trial____ As with state trials, the ready availability of collateral review of courts-martial may diminish the likelihood that defendants will raise constitutional issues at the court-martial itself, and thus have the perverse effect of enhancing the opportunity for constitutional error____ The difficulties of retrial, often years after the original trial, are no less significant in the military courts____ Federal intrusion into courts-martial interferes with the military’s power to punish offenders no less than the corresponding intrusion into state prosecutions implicates concerns of federalism.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Green v. Skulute“see any reason for adopting [in a collateral attack on a military conviction] a waiver rule that differs in scope from that applicable to state convictions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Green v. Sklute“[t]he reasons we require state defendants to raise federal constitutional issues in the state courts apply with equal force to military defendants.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Green v. Sklute
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.