Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 298 FSUPP 795 - Imbler v. Craven

Imbler v. Craven’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
January 1997
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1997 · most notably Imbler v. Pachtman (1976), United States v. Seretti (1985)

17 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

2601969197019801990decided

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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Townsend v. Sain · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Mooney v. Holohan

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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Due process of law does not tolerate a prosecutor’s selective inattention to such significant facts. It requires that he exercise good faith in prosecuting that case. *** The duty of good faith is not merely a negative one, to omit from one’s case outright lies. It imposes as well an affirmative duty to avoid even unintentional deception and misrepresentation, and in fulfilling that duty the prosecutor must undertake careful study of his case and exercise diligence in its preparation, particularly where he is confronted with facts tending to cast doubt upon his witness’ testimony. The prosecutor’s objective is justice; his role is not that of a mere advocate. The goal of justice is hardly satisfied by less.” ( 298 F.Supp. 795, 808-09 .) <”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[i]t is not only affirmative misrepresentations which the prosecutor is prohibited from employing to secure a conviction; omissions and half truths are equally damaging and prohibited, and their use is no less culpable.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “reckless use of highly suspicious false testimony”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.