Obershaw v. Lanman’s Empirical Analysis
453 F.3d 56 · 2006
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Bucci v. United States (2011), United States v. Oquendo-Rivas (2014)
12 federal appellate · 9 district ·
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 · United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Chapman v. State of California · Coleman v. Thompson
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, [nor has he shown] that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“of Chum's guilt, as well as the curative instructions the trial justice had given four times over the course of the trial. The state high court held that, in light of these circumstances, the prosecutor's comments had not created incurable prejudice, and thus a mistrial would not have been granted under state law.10 The Rhode Island Supreme Court did not conclude its unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Chum v. Coyne-Fague“[I]f a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel, our precedents do not require the cessation of questioning.”
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.