Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 602 F.2d 117 - Cook v. Bordenkircher

Cook v. Bordenkircher’s Empirical Analysis

602 F.2d 117 · 1979

Citation profile

105
cited by 105 later decisions
1
states following
December 2014
most recently cited

56 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Byrd v. Collins (2000), Walker v. Engle (1983)

56 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

62019791980199020002010decided

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 Wainwright v. Sykes · Berger v. United States · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Helfat v. Securities & Exchange Commission · United States v. Leon

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

  1. “so egregious so as to render the entire trial fundamentally unfair.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “.. . the degree to which the remarks complained of have a tendency to mislead the jury and to prejudice the accused; whether they were isolated or extensive; whether they were deliberately or accidentally placed before the jury; and the strength of the competent proofs introduced to establish the guilt of the accused.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[O]ur scope of review over allegedly prejudicial arguments by state prosecutors is narrow.”
    2 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.