Tyson v. Trigg’s Empirical Analysis
50 F.3d 436 · 1995
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably 194 W. Va. 97 - Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc. (1995), Fortini v. Murphy (2001)
45 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
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 Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Kotteakos v. United States · United States v. Bagley · Brecht v. Abrahamson
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The defendant] had appeal from his conviction. Federal habeas corpus does not entitle him to another. A federal court may intervene in the state criminal process, nullifying a defendant’s conviction and sentence and forcing the state to try him anew (or else simply let him go), only if the state criminal proceeding was vitiated by an infringement of one or more of a limited subset of the defendant’s federal rights. If required to substitute our judgment for that of the [state] court of appeals, we might come to a different conclusion from that court. But we are not authorized to conceive of our job in that way. We are not to offer a further tier of appellate review. We are to determine only whether [the defendant] was deprived of any of his federal rights that can be enforced in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he practice [in the Indiana state courts] of allowing the prosecutor to choose the grand jury and hence the trial judge is certainly unsightly . . . ; it does lack the appearance of impartiality”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he right to a judge who is free from the mere appearance of partiality is not part of due process at all, let alone a fundamental part.”
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.