Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 357 F.3d 943 - Sanders v. Aa Lamarque

Sanders v. Aa Lamarque’s Empirical Analysis

357 F.3d 943 · 2004

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
2
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Fields v. Brown (2007), Hooks v. Workman (2010)

9 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

190200420102020decided

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

Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Smith v. Phillips · Allen v. United States · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade

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

  1. “unless [Byrd] can prove otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.” Sanders v. Lamarque, 357 F.3d 943 , 948 (9th Cir.2004) (citations omitted). 2 . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 3 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`would enable the government to obtain a conviction even though a member of the jury that began deliberations thought that the government had failed to prove its case.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “is to insist on something closer to perfection than our judicial system can be expected to give. A trial represents an important investment of private and social resources, and it ill serves the important end of finality to wipe the slate clean simply to recreate the peremptory challenge process because counsel lacked an item of information which objectively he should have obtained from a juror on voir dire examination.”
    1 later decision 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.