Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 27 F.3d 451 - Nulph v. Faatz

Nulph v. Faatz’s Empirical Analysis

27 F.3d 451 · 1994

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
May 2013
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2013 · most notably Wilkinson Director Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al. v. Dotson et al. (2005), Neal v. Shimoda (1997)

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions

160199420002010decided

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 Weaver v. Graham · Dobbert v. Florida · Miller v. Florida · Johnson v. Righetti · Soto 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “See also Chapman, 754 F.2d at 1535 . ("The inquiry looks to the challenged provision and not to any special circumstances that may mitigate its effect on the particular individual”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “. . . the detriment requirement is met even if the defendant before us cannot show definitively that he would have gotten a lesser sentence.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “`said with assurance' that he would have received less severe punishment under the prior scheme.”
    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.