Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 F.3d 131 - Love v. Morton

Love v. Morton’s Empirical Analysis

112 F.3d 131 · 1997

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
May 2024
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2024 · most notably Michael Wayne Williams v. John Taylor Warden (2000), Miller v. Champion (1998)

30 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions

2801997200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Green v. United States · United States v. Jorn · Arizona v. Washington · Oregon v. Kennedy · Wade v. Hunter

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

  1. “(A) the claim relies on— (i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a]s a matter of law, declaring a mistrial in this ease was not manifestly necessary when the derision to declare a mistrial ml non could have been postponed to the next morning. The delay would have given both the prosecutor and defense counsel, as well as the court, adequate time to consider alternative solutions to the sudden emergency____ When it comes to decisions squarely implicating the serious consequences of the Double Jeopardy Clause, the necessity for collected and composed contemplation assumes a fortiori proportions. [Ibid.]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]o demonstrate manifest necessity, the state must show that under the circumstances the trial judge `had no alternative to the declaration of a mistrial.' The trial judge must consider and exhaust all other possibilities.”
    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.