Bui v. DiPaolo’s Empirical Analysis
170 F.3d 232 · 1999
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 12 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Ouber v. Guarino (2002), Michael Jf Sanna v. Paul Dipaolo (2001)
47 federal appellate · 12 district · 7 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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“every circuit that has directly addressed the issue `has concluded that Davis applies to both components of Miranda : the right to counsel and the right to remain silent.' Bui v. DiPaolo, 170 F.3d 232, 239 (1st Cir. 1999) (collecting cases).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pena v. State · Peña v. State“A certificate of appealability may issue ... only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.... The certificate of appealability ... shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy [this] showing....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“prohibit[] cross-examiners from mounting fishing expeditions.”
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.