Lam v. Kelchner’s Empirical Analysis
304 F.3d 256 · 2002
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably United States v. Brennan (2003), Littlejohn v. Trammell (2013)
14 federal appellate · 8 district · 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen a federal court reviews a state court’s ruling on federal law, or its application of federal law to a particular set of facts, the state court’s decision must stand unless it is “contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[o]ur primary concern with the fruit of the poisonous tree argument [in the Fifth Amendment context] is that the Supreme Court has never held that 'fruits' of involuntary statements are inadmissible.” Lam v. Kelchner, 304 F.3d 256 , 268 (3rd Cir.2002). 15 . 417 U.S. 433 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 , 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974). 16 . 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). 17 .Id. at 309, 105 S.Ct. 1285 . 18 . 530 U.S. 428 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000). 19 . As we later wrote of Tucker,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a state court decision is `contrary to [the Supreme Court's] clearly established precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Court's] cases' or `if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Court] and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [its] precedent.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hardcastle v. Horn
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.