Abrams v. Barnett’s Empirical Analysis
121 F.3d 1036 · 1996
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably Damacio Torres v. Kw Prunty (2000), Badelle v. Correll (2006)
11 federal appellate ·
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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno · Manson v. Brathwaite · Lindh v. Murphy · Sumner v. Mata
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is entitled to both the benefit of an expanded body of law in challenging his conviction and to a more exacting review of any claims involving the application of federal law to the facts of his case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[j]uries are not so susceptible that they cannot measure intelligently the weight of identification testimony that has some questionable feature.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gregory-Bey v. Hanks“the reasonable factual findings of the state trial and appellate courts as true.”
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.