Kaplan v. Bombard’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Johnson v. Zerbst · Faretta v. California · Byrne v. Karalexis
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““During a post-conviction hearing, Justice Denzer found that there was no conflict of interest among the defenses presented at trial for the three co-defendants. In fact, he found that there was a ‘community of interest’ among the defendants in that the evidence was consistent ‘in indicating the equal responsibility of all three men.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kaplan v. Bombard““Petitioner alleges that he has exhausted his state remedies, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Respondent does not challenge this contention.” 444 F.Supp. at 233 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kaplan v. Bombard
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.