Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 39 F.3d 873 - Foster v. Delo

Foster v. Delo’s Empirical Analysis

39 F.3d 873 · 1994

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
1
states following
August 2010
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably Alvie James Hale v. Gary Gibson (2000), Sidebottom v. Delo (1995)

26 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

350199420002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Johnson v. Zerbst · Wolff v. McDonnell · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes

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

  1. “the Fourteenth Amendment of course entitles [the defendant] to procedures to ensure that the right is not arbitrarily denied.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Foster argues that his attorney should have called him to testify in order to convince the jury not to impose capital punishment on him. He does not, however, tell us why he believes that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different verdict if it had heard his testimony. In fact, at the evidentiary hearing held when the state court heard his motion for relief ... Foster never even indicated what his testimony would have been had he taken the stand. Since it is incumbent upon a petitioner to show that he was actually prejudiced by his counsel’s actions, we cannot grant relief.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The admissibility of evidence is a question of state law that does not raise a federal issue unless admitting the evidence infringes specific constitutional protections or is so prejudicial that it amounts to a denial of due process.”
    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.