Chaker v. Crogan’s Empirical Analysis
428 F.3d 1215 · 2005
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably Simmons v. Navajo County (2010), Medley v. Runnels (2007)
21 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade · Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“irrefutable presumption that collateral consequences result from any criminal conviction”). 2 . NFCU allegedly sent Goldyn a letter a few days before Goldyn wrote the five checks at issue, informing her that her check guarantee account was being closed due to excessive overdrafts. But the letter was sent”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Goldyn v. Hayes · Goldyn v. Hayes“with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fox v. Johnson
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.