Briceno v. Scribner’s Empirical Analysis
555 F.3d 1069 · 2009
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably United States v. Nevils (2010), Klein v. City of San Clemente (2009)
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 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
Applies 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Williams v. Taylor · Estelle v. McGuire · Lindh v. Murphy · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the absence of a pronouncement by the highest court of a state, the federal courts must follow the decision of the intermediate appellate courts of the state unless there is convincing evidence that the highest court of the state would decide differently.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Relying on the majority opinion in [Garcia], appellant [Romero] asserts that the statute requires a showing of intent to promote the gang’s criminal activity beyond the charged crime. In Garcia, the Ninth Circuit found insufficient evidence of specific intent to promote, further, or assist in other criminal conduct by the defendant’s gang. We disagree with Garcia’s interpretation of the California statute, and decline to follow it----By its plain language, the statute requires a showing of specific intent to promote, further, or assist in “any criminal conduct by gang members,” rather than other criminal conduct. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1), italics added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Emery v. Clark“Defendants note there was evidence to show the crimes were committed for personal gain (money to buy Christmas gifts) rather than any gang-related purpose. The problem with this argument is that it ignores Vi’s expert testimony explaining how the commission of these crimes would enhance the reputation not only of the gang itself but of the individual participants as well. Based on this evidence, the jurors could reasonably have found the gang enhancement allegations were true. It was for the jurors to resolve any credibility issues or conflicts in the evidence. We cannot second-guess their decision on appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Emery v. Clark
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.