Parker v. Champion’s Empirical Analysis
148 F.3d 1219 · 1998
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2022 · most notably United States v. Locke (2000), Miller v. Champion (1998)
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 Hall v. Bellmon · United States v. Cook · Williamson v. Ward · Mayes v. State · First City Bank Na v. Air Capitol Aircraft Sales Inc R
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even if the trial court erred in giving the second degree felony murder instruction, Parker invited the error by requesting this instruction at trial. This invited error precludes ... the grant of any habeas relief, on the basis of the alleged improper instruction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Leavitt v. Arave · Leavitt v. Arave“[A] district court should not 'assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant,' and may 'not rewrite a petition to include claims that were never presented.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vieira v. De Souza“an issue which was obvious from the trial record, . . . and one which would have resulted in a reversal on appeal.”
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.