Taylor v. Cardwell’s Empirical Analysis
579 F.2d 1380 · 1978
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1995
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Townsend v. Sain · Kent v. United States · Rogers v. Richmond · Davis v. North Carolina
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(w)hile federal courts defer the proper state findings of historical fact, the federal court itself must determine the legal effect of these facts, and it must apply the proper federal legal standard in doing so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mata v. Sumner“does not establish an irrebuttable presumption that all statements that comply with its rules are voluntary”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nash v. Estelle
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.