Blankenship v. Estelle’s Empirical Analysis
545 F.2d 510 · 1977
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably Daye v. Attorney General of New York (1982), United States v. Antone (1979)
26 federal appellate · 2 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Giglio v. United States · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Picard v. Connor · Mooney v. Holohan
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Concededly, the particular case holding of Giglio was not called to the states courts’ attention. However, the kernel of petitioner’s complaint is that he was convicted on perjured testimony, knowingly used by the prosecution; or, at the least, that he was deprived by the State of impeachment evidence helpful and material to his defense. Courts have long been on notice that such a conviction violates due process requirements. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 [](1963); Na pue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 , 79 S.Ct. 1173 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 [] (1959); Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 , 63 S.Ct. 177 , 87 L.Ed. 214 [] (1942); Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 , 55 S.Ct. 340 , 79 L.Ed. 791 [] (1935). Petitioner’s application in the state court proceedings clearly raised this issue; he is not required to cite to the state court “book and verse on the federal constitution,” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 , 92 S.Ct. 509 , 30 L.Ed.2d 438 [] (1971), in order to adequately present his constitutional claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the issue at trial boiled down to a credibility contest between (defendant) and (the) State witnesses (his two alleged accomplices.)”
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.