Talbott v. Indiana’s Empirical Analysis
226 F.3d 866 · 2000
Citation profile
85 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Williams v. Taylor · Teague v. Lane · Custis v. United States · Maleng v. Cook
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 173 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Apprendi does not affect application of the relevant-conduct rules under the Sentencing Guidelines to sentences that fall within a statutory cap.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen the statutory maximum is life imprisonment, Apprendi is beside the point.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Prisoners seem to think that Apprendi reopens every sentencing issue decided by a federal court in the last generation. It does not. All Apprendi holds is that most circumstances increasing a statutory maximum sentence must be treated as elements of the offenseand, if the defendant has demanded a jury trial, this means that they must be established beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury's satisfaction.”
3 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.