Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 399 F.3d 18 - White v. Coplan

White v. Coplan’s Empirical Analysis

399 F.3d 18 · 2005

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
5
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 5 district · 16 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Chambers v. Mississippi · Pointer v. Texas · Rock v. Arkansas

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

  1. “We are concerned here with an attempt to pursue by cross-examination prior past accusations of a quite similar character to the present one; with a ruling ... that the prior accusations (or at least two of them) were false to a reasonable probability; with a resulting plausible inference of a motive to deceive that could infect the present testimony of the two vital prosecution witnesses; and with a defendant who had virtually no other way to defend himself. This is the unusual situation and, to us, an extreme case.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[cjalls for a balancing of interests depending on circumstances of the case. Factors that the Supreme Court has deemed relevant are [1] the importance of the evidence to an effective defense, [2] the scope of the ban involved and [3] the strength vel non of state interests weighing against admission of the evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A state-court decision constitutes an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law if it identifies the correct rule, but applies that rule unreasonably to the facts of the case sub judice.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.