Ronald Davis v. Wayne Strack, Superintendent, Fishkill Correctional Facility and Dennis C. Vacco, New York State Attorney General’s Empirical Analysis
270 F.3d 111 · 2001
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Taylor v. Withrow (2002), Dixon v. Miller (2002)
8 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Williams v. Taylor · Estelle v. McGuire · Picard v. Connor · Cupp v. Naughten
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he fact that ‘federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law,’ Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 , 110 S.Ct. 3092 , 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990), does not mean, however, that errors under state law cannot result in cognizable violations of a constitutional right to due process. What due process requires will often depend on what state law is. States are free to define the elements of, and defenses to, crimes. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 484-87 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 84-86 , 106 S.Ct. 2411 , 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986). Once states have promulgated laws to define criminal conduct, however, federal due process protects a defendant from conviction unless he is shown in a fair proceeding to have violated those laws.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating ...; or (b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or (c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.-”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]f the record includes evidence which, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant and drawing all reasonably permissible inferences in his favor, satisfies the essential elements of the defense of justification, the charge must be given. Where a justification charge is warranted, a court’s refusal to instruct the jury' that the People must disprove the defendant’s claim of justification constitutes reversible error.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.