Ex Parte Wells’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2251 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Hurtado v. People of the State of California · Ex Parte Hawk No - on Rule to Show Cause and Return · Hagar v. · Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc. · Wade v. Mayo
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it' appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circuihstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner. . . “An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section,, if -he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.” "”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Duffy v. Wells“shall summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of the matter as law and justice require”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte Sullivan
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.