Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 578 F.2d 582 - Spinkellink v. Wainwright

Spinkellink v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis

578 F.2d 582 · 1978

Citation profile

376
cited by 376 later decisions
10
cited 10 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
November 2022
most recently cited

113 federal appellate · 3 district · 123 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 376 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2022 · most notably McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), Pulley v. Harris (1984)

113 federal appellate · 3 district · 123 state decisions — followed in 23 states

2990197819801990200020102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Glasser v. United States · Younger v. Harris · Wolff v. McDonnell · Wainwright v. Sykes

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

  1. “What is intended to be included are those capital crimes where the actual commission of the capital felony was accompanied by such additional acts as to set the crime apart from the norm of capital felonies — the conscienceless or pitiless crime which is unnecessarily torturous to the victim.”
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[i]t indicates only that a death-qualified jury might favor the prosecution and that a nondeath-qualified jury might favor the defendant.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"The right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to trial by a jury guarantees to the criminally accused `a fair trial by a panel of impartial, "indifferent" jurors.' Irvin v. Dowd , supra, 366 U.S. at 722 , 81 S.Ct. at 1642 . Accord, e.g., Murphy v. Florida , 421 U.S. 794 , 799 , 95 S.Ct. 2031 , 2036 , 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). But the state also enjoys the right to an impartial jury, Williams v. Wainwright , supra, 427 F.2d at 923, and impartiality requires not only freedom from jury bias against the accused and for the prosecution, but freedom from jury bias for the accused and against the prosecution. Hayes v. Missouri , 120 U.S. 68 , 70-71 , 7 S.Ct. 350 , 351 , 30 L.Ed. 578 (1887). See Comment , 21 Vand.L.Rev. 864, 865 (1968)." Spinkellink v. Wainwright , 578 F.2d 582 , 596 (5th Cir. 1978).”
    6 later decisions 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.