Patterson v. Haskins’s Empirical Analysis
316 F.3d 596 · 2003
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Coleman v. Thompson · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Neder v. United States
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is also well-established [in Ohio] that a “defendant cannot be held responsible for consequences no reasonable person could expect to follow from his conduct,” and that a person should only be held criminally responsible for consequences “which are direct, normal, and reasonably inevitable—as opposed to extraordinary or surprising—when viewed in the light of ordinary experience.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“comment[ ] on whether sufficient evidence was presented for the jury to have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the essential elements of a crime for which the jury was never completely charged.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Patterson v. Haskins“contrary to ... clearly established federal law”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Patterson v. Haskins
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.