Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 360 F.3d 1044 - Robinson v. Ignacio

Robinson v. Ignacio’s Empirical Analysis

360 F.3d 1044 · 2004

Citation profile

126
cited by 126 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 126 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2023 · most notably Marshall v. Rodgers (2013), Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms (2006)

55 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 state decisions

840200420102020decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · Faretta v. California · Gideon v. Wainwright

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

  1. “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a]lthough the Supreme Court has never explicitly addressed a criminal defendant's ability to re-assert his right to counsel for sentencing after a previous waiver of that right during trial, its silence on this particular issue need not prevent us from identifying and applying the general governing principles at hand.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Ninth Circuit precedent may be persuasive authority for purposes of determining whether a particular state court decision is an unreasonable application of Supreme Court law, and may also help us determine what law is clearly established.”
    4 later decisions 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.