Norris v. Schotten’s Empirical Analysis
146 F.3d 314 · 1998
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Combs v. Coyle (2000), James David Carter v. Ricky Bell, Warden Paul Summers, Attorney General (2000)
34 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 631 (Federal Magistrate Act of 1979) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Johnson v. Zerbst · Barker v. Wingo
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]rial judges retain great discretion to impose reasonable limits on the cross-examination of witnesses based on concerns such as harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness's safety, and marginal relevancy.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“agree[d] with appellant that the sudden increase in fines from $30,000 in September of 1993 to $50,000 by August of 1995 needs to be explained since a `nunc pro tunc order cannot be used to supply omitted action, or to indicate what the court might or should have decided, or what the trial court intended to decide.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As discussed in Part II.G. supra, appellant’s claim regarding the apparent increase in the fine component of his sentence is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust. With respect to all of appellant’s other claims, for the foregoing reasons appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Norris v. Konteh
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.