Rodden v. Delo’s Empirical Analysis
143 F.3d 441 · 1998
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 2010
3 federal appellate · 1 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Teague v. Lane · Ashe v. Swenson · Darden v. Wainwright · Caldwell v. Mississippi
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“consider the type of prejudice that arose from the argument, what defense counsel did to minimize the prejudice, whether the jury received proper instructions, and whether there is a reasonable probability of a different sentencing decision absent the improper argument.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Improper argument violates due process when the argument is so egregious that it renders the entire trial fundamentally unfair.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Each additional crime creates a fresh exposure to punishment, which may be cumulativeindeed, must be cumulative if there is to be deterrence for extra offenses.”
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.