Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 409 U.S. 505 - Robinson v. Neil

Robinson v. Neil’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

692
cited by 692 later decisions
39
cited 39 times by the Supreme Court
37
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

241 federal appellate · 30 district · 258 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 692 later decisions (39 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Teague v. Lane (1989), Abney v. United States (1977)

241 federal appellate · 30 district · 258 state decisions — followed in 37 states

3190197319801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedRobinson v. Neil (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · North Carolina v. Pearce · Furman v. Georgia · Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland

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

  1. “is to prevent a trial from taking place at all, rather than to prescribe procedural rules that govern the conduct of a trial.”
    33 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`[B]oth the common law and our own decisions' have `recognized a general rule of retrospective effect for the constitutional decisions of this Court.'”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““. . . [W]e believe that the Constitution neither prohibits nor requires retrospective effect. . . . Once the premise is accepted that we are neither required to apply, nor prohibited from applying, a decision retrospectively, we must then weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.”
    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.