Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 135 F.3d 235 - Tankleff v. Da Senkowski

Tankleff v. Da Senkowski’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

219
cited by 219 later decisions
16
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 11 district · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 219 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Fama v. Commissioner of Correctional Services (2000), United States v. Newton (2004)

23 federal appellate · 11 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 16 states

15201998200020102020decided

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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Batson v. Kentucky · Faretta v. California · United States v. Bagley

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

  1. ““[T]he test used in determining whether a defendant was in custody is an objective one that' (a) asks whether a reasonable person would have understood herself to be subjected to restraints comparable to those associated with a formal arrest, and (b) focuses upon the presence or absence of affirmative indications that the defendant was not free to leave. An accused is in custody when, even in the absence of an actual arrest, law enforcement officials act or speak in a manner that conveys the message that they would not permit the accused to leave.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “When a witness's credibility has already been substantially called into question in the same respects by other evidence, additional impeachment evidence will generally be immaterial and will not provide the basis for a Brady claim.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Courts have looked at various factors in making this determination. These include: whether a suspect is or is not told that she is free to leave, see Campaneria v. Reid, 891 F.2d 1014 , 1021 n. 1 (2d Cir.1989); the location and atmosphere of the interrogation, see Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 494-95 , 97 S.Ct. 711, 713-14, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); the language and tone used by the police, see United States v. Guarno, 819 F.2d 28, 31-32 (2d Cir.1987); whether the suspect is searched, frisked, or patted down, see United States v. Wilson, 901 F.Supp. 172, 175 (S.D.N.Y.1995); and the length of the interrogation, see Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 437-38 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.