Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 461 F.2d 261 - Martinez v. Turner

Martinez v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis

461 F.2d 261 · 1972

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
5
states following
December 2004
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 2004 · most notably Osborn v. Shillinger (1988), State v. Reid (2000)

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

1301972198019902000decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Stovall v. Denno · Coolidge v. New Hampshire

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

  1. “Since the record consists solely of the transcripts and the photograph, we are in as good a position as the trial court to evaluate the evidence. Nevertheless, even where the record is wholly documentary our scope of review is enlarged only'to the extent that no regard need be given the opportunity of the trial court to observe witnesses, and in such cases we nevertheless do not disturb the findings unless we have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Everett, 340 F.2d 65 , 70 (10th Cir.[1965]); Sta-Rite Industries, Inc. v. Johnson, 453 F.2d 1192 (10th Cir.[1972]).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It cannot be said that its discovery was inadvertent and the plain view doctrine cannot apply.”
    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.