Bean v. Calderon’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 2015
2 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Simmons v. United States · Townsend v. Sain · Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery ¿granted to Respondents, including the requests to depose sentencing counsel Brogna, Petitioner’s experts and Petitioner, shall be deemed to be confidential. Any information, documents and materials obtained vis-a-vis. the discovery process may be used only by representatives from the Office of the Arizona Attorney General and only for purposes of any proceedings incident to litigating the claims presented in the petition for writ of habeas corpus (and all amendments thereto) pending before this Court. None may be disclosed to any other persons or agencies, including any other law enforcement or prosecutorial personnel or agencies, without,, an order from this Court. This Order 'shall continue in effect after the conclusion of the habeas corpus proceedings and specifically shall apply in the event of a resentencing, except that either party maintains the right to request modification or vacation of this Order upon entry of final judgment in this matter. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents’ deposition of Petitioner must specifically relate to assertions Petitioner has made in this habeas petition (or amendments thereto), and for which it is likely that Petitioner has personal knowledge. The questions must be phrased in such a manner that they are directly linked to the federal claim upon which Petitioner is being deposed. Petitioner may assert his Fifth Amendment privilege, but the assertion of that privilege may be cause for the Cou”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lambright v. Ryan“as long as the questions asked directly related to the allegations in the petition, and petitioner could invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege as he saw fit without any adverse inference being drawn on account of its invocation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[f]or the most part, the cherished, constitutional protections of criminal procedure, and the issue here concerns the invocation of a constitutional protection, have no application in habeas corpus proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.