Weaver v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
197 F.3d 359 · 1999
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Taylor v. Maddox (2004), Lambert v. Blackwell (2004)
53 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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 Brecht v. Abrahamson · Lindh v. Murphy · Picard v. Connor · Allen v. United States · Darr v. Burford
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“new factual allegations do not render a claim unexhausted unless they `fundamentally alter the legal claim already considered by the state courts.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“may affirm on any ground supported by the record, even if it differs from the rationale of the district court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The jurors, not yet having reached a verdict on all counts, sent out a note to the judge inquiring whether they must decide all counts. The note, moreover, was sent out at 8:30 p.m., after a full day of trial followed by four hours of deliberations. After departing to deliver the note to the judge, the bailiff returned and informed them that they were required to return a verdict as to all four counts. Five minutes later, the jury reached guilty verdicts on all counts. It requires no imagination to comprehend that these events may have altered the minority jurors' views of the deliberations. Had their inquiry been properly answered, they would have understood their task to be one of conscientiously coming to and abiding by their own decision, even if this resulted in a hung jury as to some counts. Based on the erroneous instruction received from the bailiff, their task was, as to each count, to yield to the majority or keep at it until they persuaded the majority to join their position that acquittal was warranted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Henri v. Curto
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.