Fiore v. White’s Empirical Analysis
149 F.3d 221 · 1998
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2012
8 federal appellate · 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Teague v. Lane · Estelle v. McGuire · Bailey v. United States · Bousley v. United States
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the federal constitution has no voice upon the subject”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court held, and Fiore maintains on appeal, that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment require retroactive application of [ Commonwealth v. Scarpone, 535 Pa. 273 , 634 A.2d 1109 (1993)]. This conclusion, however, is at odds with the Supreme Court's longstanding position that "the federal constitution has no voice upon the subject" of retroactivity. Greater[Great] Northern Ry. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U.S. 358, 364 [, 53 S.Ct. 145 , 77 L.Ed. 360 ] (1932). See Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 642 [, 104 S.Ct. 1338 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 ] (1984); United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537, 542 [, 102 S.Ct. 2579 , 73 L.Ed.2d 202 ] (1982). While the Court has concluded that some federal criminal decisions should apply retroactively, see Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346-47 [, 94 S.Ct. 2298 , 41 L.Ed.2d 109 ] (1974); United States v. United States Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715, 724 [, 91 S.Ct. 1041 , 28 L.Ed.2d 434 ] (1971), it has made clear that state courts are under no constitutional obligation to apply their own criminal decisions retroactively. Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21, 23-24 [, 94 S.Ct. 190 , 38 L.Ed.2d 179 ] (1973). Thus, just as the Supreme Court has fashioned retroactivity rules for the federal courts based on principles of judicial integrity, fairness, and finality, see Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 304-310 [, 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 ] (1989), the state courts are free to adopt their own retroact”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“state courts are under no [federal] constitutional obligation to apply their decisions retroactively.”
2 later decisions 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.