Feddiman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
1 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Flonnory v. State (2006), Coleman v. State (1989)
1 district · 23 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 Batson v. Kentucky · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Swain v. State of Alabama · Scharffe v. Perkins
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.
“"[a] person who commits multiple sexual assaults upon the same victim may be held responsible for, and punished for, each separate and distinct act,” albeit a violation of the same statute. One is not allowed to "take advantage of the fact that he has already committed one sexual assault on the victim and thereby be permitted to commit further assaults on the same person with no risk of further punishment for each assault committed. Each act is a further denigration of the victim’s integrity and a further danger to the victim.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Dividing one offense into 'multiple counts of an indictment violates the double jeopardy provisions of the constitutions of the State of Delaware and of the United States.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Mills v. State · Joyner v. State“To establish such a case, the defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, ... and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant’s race. Second, the defendant is entitled to rely on the fact, as to which there can be no dispute, that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits “those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate.” ... Finally, the defendant must show that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the ... jury on account of their race.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Robertson v. State
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.