Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 529 F. Supp. 650 - Alejandro v. Scully

529 F. Supp. 650 - Alejandro v. Scully’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
February 2006
most recently cited

1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 2006

1 state decisions

30198219902000decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on United States v. Wade · Sumner v. Mata · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · Frisbie v. Collins · United States v. Crews

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

  1. “the question whether a motion to consolidate or a motion to sever should be granted is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and will be reversed on appeal only where the defendant suffered such prejudice from a joint trial ... that the trial court may be said to have abused its discretion by refusing separate trials.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Habeas corpus review of a state trial court’s grant of a consolidation or denial of a severance is even more limited than direct appellate review”) with Breeland v. Blackburn, 786 F.2d 1239, 1241 (5th Cir.1986) (federal court opinions reviewing severance decisions by state courts and by federal courts are”
    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.