Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 416 F.3d 555 - Ruvalcaba v. Chandler

Ruvalcaba v. Chandler’s Empirical Analysis

416 F.3d 555 · 2005

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
3
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Badelle v. Correll (2006), Gilbert v. Merchant (2007)

23 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

190200520102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Williams v. Taylor · Colorado v. Connelly · Darden 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) whether the prosecutor misstated the evidence, (2) whether the remarks implicate specific rights of the accused other than the right to a fair trial, (3) whether the defense invited the response, (4) the trial court's instructions, (5) the weight of the evidence against the defendant, and (6) the defendant's opportunity to rebut.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “get Caguana and get the truth out of her, and if she tried lying [Moser] would make sure he put her in jail and [would] take the baby, and make sure the baby ended up in D.C.F.S.”
    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.