Murphy v. Jd Netherland Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
116 F.3d 97 · 1997
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Rose v. Lee (2001), United States of America v. Chucks Emuegbunam (2001)
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 19 states
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 Murray v. Carrier · James Foster v. David Neilson · Waldron v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · United States v. Calderon-Medina · Faulder v. Johnson
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]ven if the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations could be said to create individual rights (as opposed to setting out the rights and obligations of signatory nations), it certainly does not create constitutional rights. . . . [T]he Supremacy Clause does not convert violations of treaty provisions . . . into violations of constitutional rights.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“make a substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal right”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[United States] authorities . . . shall, without delay, inform the • consular post of the [foreign State] if... a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested . . . shall also be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this sub-paragraph[.]”
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.