James v. Kentucky’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
251 federal appellate · 6 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 628 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Harris v. Reed (1989), Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University (1989)
251 federal appellate · 6 district · 51 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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
Relies on Cupp v. Naughten · Douglas v. Alabama · Henry v. State of Mississippi · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Taylor v. Kentucky
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 628 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“firmly established and regularly followed.”
27 later decisions quote this exact passage“acknowledged that 'sometimes matters more appropriately the subject of admonition are included with or as a part of the instructions,'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Joseph Roger O'dell, III v. J.D. Netherland, Warden, Mecklenburg Correctional Center Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections James S. Gilmore, Iii, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia Commonwealth of Virginia, Joseph Roger O'dell, III v. J.D. Netherland, Warden, Mecklenburg Correctional Center Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections James S. Gilmore, Iii, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia Commonwealth of Virginia · O'Dell III v. Jd Netherland J S III O'Dell III“The Constitution obliges the trial judge to tell the jury ... not to draw the inference if the defendant so requests [.]”
2 later decisions 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.