Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 493 F.2d 37 - Hall v. Wainwright

Hall v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis

493 F.2d 37 · 1974

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
November 2009
most recently cited

22 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2009 · most notably Salemme v. Ristaino (1978), Smith v. Sowders (1988)

22 federal appellate ·

1701974198019902000decided

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 Ashe v. Swenson · Ladner v. United States · 55 So. 2d 559 - Hearn v. State · Caplinger v. Wainwright

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

  1. “The adoption of a single larceny doctrine is strictly a matter of state law. The doctrine has not received universal acceptance by the states which have considered it. See Annot., 37 A.L.R.3d 1407 , 1410. Equally, the application of that doctrine, or the refusal to apply it to a given set of facts is a matter to be resolved by state courts, in this instance by Florida courts. It does not involve a federal constitutional question. Both the Florida court of appeal and the Supreme Court of Florida, by its denial of certiorari, found the facts in Hall’s case to be outside the doctrine as declared by Florida courts. There the matter ends. Determination of state law by courts of that state is binding upon federal courts, and consequently the district court below was bound by Florida’s interpretation of Florida law.”
    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.