Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 170 F.3d 560 - Ramos v. Rogers

Ramos v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis

170 F.3d 560 · 1999

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably McAdoo v. Elo (2004), State v. Kelly (2008)

5 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

2301999200020102020decided

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 · Holm v. United States · Anderson v. United States · LaBranche v. United States Olympic Committee · Baker 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If we were to rely on Ramos’s alleged subjective impression rather than the record, we would be rendering the plea colloquy process meaningless, for any convict who alleges that he believed the plea bargain was different from that outlined in the record could withdraw his plea, despite his own statements during the plea colloquy ... indicating the opposite. This we will not do, for the plea colloquy process exists in part to prevent petitioners such as Ramos from making the precise claim that is today before us. Where the court has scrupulously followed the required procedure, the defendant is bound by his statements in response to that court’s inquiry.”
    5 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.