Barbe v. McBride’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.3d 443 · 2008
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably United States v. Fuertes (2015), Wolfe v. Johnson (2009)
6 federal appellate · 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Slack v. McDaniel · Williams v. Taylor · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In making the Rape Shield Ruling at trial, the state court contravened the Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987)-Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145 , 111 S.Ct. 1743 , 114 L.Ed.2d 205 (1991) [ease-by-case assessment] Principle. That is, the circuit court applied a per se exclusionary rule, premised on its conclusion that, because Barbe was not relying on the falsity exception to the rape shield law recognized in State v. Quinn, “the rape shield statute applies, period.” As the Supreme Court explained in Lucas , a court’s adoption and application of a per se exclusionary rule — absent consideration of the specific facts of the case, and absent an appropriate assessment of the legitimate competing interests of the accused and the State — constitutes error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether, on the facts of this case, preclusion [of the evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity] violated [the defendant's] rights under the Sixth Amendment); see also Barbe v. McBride, 521 F.3d 448, 449 (4th Cir.2008) ("[UJnder the Rock-Lucas Principle, a state court cannot impose a per se rule for disallowing evidence under a rape shield law; rather, it must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the exclusionary rule 'is arbitrary or disproportionate to the State's legitimate interests.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Petitioner was denied his right to due process of law as secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the U.S.A. and the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Section 10, when Petitioner did not receive the punishment prescribed by statute in force at the time of the commission of the offense.”
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.