Thibodeau v. Portuondo’s Empirical Analysis
486 F.3d 61 · 2007
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Dickerson ex rel. Davison v. Napolitano (2010), New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Cuomo (2015)
14 federal appellate · 3 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 18 U.S.C. § 1031 · 21 U.S.C. § 857 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Kolender v. Lawson · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Cjourts undertaking an as-applied challenge may determine either (1) that a statute as a general matter provides sufficiently clear standards to minimize the risk of arbitrary enforcement or (2) that, even without such standards, the conduct at issue falls within the core of the statute’s prohibition, so that the enforcement was not the result of the unfettered discretion that law enforcement officers and factfinders might have in other, hypothetical applications of the statute.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a law is unconstitutionally vague if it authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] state court’s decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if it contradicts Supreme Court precedent on the application of a legal rule, or addresses a set of facts “materially indistinguishable” from a Supreme Court decision but nevertheless comes to a different conclusion than the Court did. [Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 ,] at 405—06[, 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)]; Loliscio v. Goord, 263 F.3d 178, 184 (2d Cir.2001).... [A] state court’s decision is an “unreasonable application of’ clearly established federal law if the state court “identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts” of the case before it. Williams, 529 U.S. at 413 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 .”
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.