Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 443 F.2d 182 - Schaefer v. Leone

Schaefer v. Leone’s Empirical Analysis

443 F.2d 182 · 1971

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
December 2009
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably McSherry v. Block (1989), United States ex rel. Smith v. Montanye (1974)

13 federal appellate · 3 district ·

2301971198019902000decided

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 Morissette v. United States · Gryger v. Burke · Cole v. State of Arkansas · Viscardi v. United States · Robert J. Grundler and Joseph L. Jelly v. State of North Carolina

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

  1. ““Were we to hold otherwise, the District Court’s rationale would turn every disagreement by a federal district judge with a State court’s interpretation of a State statute and their appraisal of a State trial court’s instructions thereunder potentially into a question of ‘fundamental due process.’ This result would impose an additional burden on our already overburdened federal courts and pose an unnecessary and undesirable threat of greatly increased federal intervention in cases involving the sufficiency of jury instruction and the construction of State law.” Schaefer v. Leone, 443 F.2d at 185 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We are not at liberty to conjecture that the [state] trial court acted under an interpretation of the state law different from that which we might adopt and then set up our own interpretation as a basis for declaring that due process has been denied.”
    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.