State v. Fagan’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 178 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 186 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably State v. Kitchens (2011), State v. Fabricatore (2007)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 178 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. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3147 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Almendarez-Torres v. United States · Boykin v. Alabama
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 186 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he plain error doctrine is reserved for truly extraordinary situations where the existence of the error is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings. . . . Plain error is a doctrine that should be invoked sparingly.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n the usual Golding situation, the defendant raises a claim on appeal [that], while not preserved at trial, at least was not waived at trial. . . . [A] constitutional claim that has been waived does not satisfy the third prong of the Golding test because, in such circumstances, we simply cannot conclude that injustice [has been] done to either party . . . or that the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial. . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[could not] conclude that the trial court committed a clear and obvious error by exercising its discretion under the express provisions of a presumptively valid statute”
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.