Deputy v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
19 F.3d 1485 · 1994
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 8 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Coe v. Bell (1998), United States v. Higgs (2003)
15 federal appellate · 8 district · 13 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 Strickland v. Washington · Terry v. Ohio · Batson v. Kentucky · Townsend v. Sain · Gregg v. Georgia
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even otherwise potentially meritorious Fourth Amendment claims are barred on habeas when the petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate them.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The trial court is in the best position to observe the demeanor of the prospective jurors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The legislature may itself narrow the definition of capital offenses ... so that the jury finding of guilt responds to this concern, or the legislature may more broadly define capital offenses and provide a narrowing by jury findings of aggravating circumstances at the penalty phase. * * * Here, the ‘narrowing function’ was performed by the jury at the guilt phase when it found defendant guilty.... The fact that the sentencing jury is also required to find the existence of an aggravating circumstance in addition is no part of the constitutionally required narrowing process, and so the fact that the aggravating circumstance duplicated one of the elements of the crime does not make this sentence constitutionally infirm.”
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.