Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 383 F.3d 809 - Leavitt v. Arave

Leavitt v. Arave’s Empirical Analysis

383 F.3d 809 · 2004

Citation profile

120
cited by 120 later decisions
17
states following
January 2021
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 3 district · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably Butler v. Curry (2008), Commonwealth v. Gonsalves (2005)

47 federal appellate · 3 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 17 states

880200420102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Crawford v. Washington · 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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the principal evil at which the Confrontation Clause was directed was the civil-law mode of criminal procedure, and particularly its use of ex parte examinations as evidence against the accused.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The rule of law which clothes every person accused of a crime with the presumption of innocence and imposes upon the state the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not intended to aid anyone who is in fact guilty to escape but is a humane provision of the law intended so far as human agencies can to guard against the danger of an innocent person being unjustly punished.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “significantly deferential, and we must accept the district court’s factual findings absent a definite and firm conviction that a mistake.has been committed.”
    2 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.