Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 103 F.3d 1338 - Hampton v. Page

Hampton v. Page’s Empirical Analysis

103 F.3d 1338 · 1997

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
November 1999
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Zant v. Stephens · Soberon v. United States · Yagow v. United States · Clemons v. Mississippi · Kuntz v. City of Dayton

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Illinois has a non-weighing statutory scheme to determine if someone is eligible for the death penalty.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a label--in bold letters--to its capital sentencing scheme,”
    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.