Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 510 F.2d 1014 - Blackburn v. Cross

Blackburn v. Cross’s Empirical Analysis

510 F.2d 1014 · 1975

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
8
states following
June 2011
most recently cited

44 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably Chapman v. United States (1977), United States v. Mock (1979)

44 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions

32019751980199020002010decided

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 · Stovall v. Denno · Ashe v. Swenson · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Harrington v. California

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

  1. “"It is fundamentally unfair and totally incongruous with our basic concepts of justice to permit the sovereign to offer proof that a defendant committed a specific crime which a jury of that sovereign has concluded he did not commit. Otherwise a person could never remove himself from the blight and suspicious aura which surround an accusation that he is guilty of a specific crime. Wingate was charged with robbing Hellman and Angel and as a result of those charges he endured the perils of trial. He was acquitted of those very charges and that should end the matter."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Recent Supreme Court decisions regarding “harmless constitutional error” inquire as to “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 23, 87 S.Ct. 824 , 827, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). Only if the court can declare with confidence “beyond a reasonable doubt” that such a possibility is excluded by the record can it declare a constitutional error harmless. Id. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(t)he purpose of (the Wingate ) rule is bound up in the whole complex of values that the guarantee against double jeopardy represents.”
    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.