LaGrand v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
133 F.3d 1253 · 1998
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 6 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably Victor Wayne Hooks v. Ron Ward (1999), 748 So. 2d 1028 - Stephens v. State (1999)
51 federal appellate · 6 district · 11 state decisions
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 Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Kotteakos v. United States · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Wainwright v. Sykes
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[b]ecause the ‘statements against penal interest’ exception to the hearsay rule is premised upon the inherent reliability of statements that tend to incriminate the declarant, federal courts have concluded that a statement that includes both incriminating declarations and corollary declarations that, taken alone, are not inculpatory of the declarant, must be separated and only that portion that is actually incriminating of the declarant admitted under the exception.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Chia v. Cambra · Chia v. Cambra“federal courts do not review the imposition of the sentence de novo. Here, as in the state courts’ finding of the existence of an aggravating factor, we must use the rational fact-finder test of Lewis v. Jeffers. That is, considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, could a rational fact-finder have imposed the death penalty”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The risk of accident cannot and need not be eliminated from the execution process in order to survive constitutional review.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Cooper v. Rimmer · Cooper v. Rimmer
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.