Buell v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
274 F.3d 337 · 2001
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 1 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably State v. LaMar (2002), State v. Yarbrough (2002)
49 federal appellate · 1 district · 19 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 18 U.S.C. § 3591 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 455
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · United States v. Bagley · Coleman v. Thompson
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the determination of whether customary international law prevents [the] State [of Oklahoma] from carrying out the death penalty ... is a question that is [properly] reserved to the executive and legislative branches of the United States government, as it [is] their constitutional role to determine the extent of this country's international obligations and how best to carry them out.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“`Courts in the United States are bound to give effect to international law and to international agreements, except that a `non-self-executing' agreement will not be given effect as law in the absence of necessary authority.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“'a judge is not automatically disqualified from a case on the basis of having sponsored or voted upon a law in the state legislature that he is later called upon to review as a judge'”
2 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.