Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 608 F.2d 839 - Brinlee v. Crisp

Brinlee v. Crisp’s Empirical Analysis

608 F.2d 839 · 1979

Citation profile

166
cited by 166 later decisions
3
states following
May 2022
most recently cited

102 federal appellate · 10 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 166 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Dockins v. Hines (2004), Lincoln v. Sunn (1987)

102 federal appellate · 10 district · 9 state decisions

720197919801990200020102020decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Haines v. Kerner · 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 166 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “State court rulings on the admissibility of evidence may not be questioned in federal habeas proceedings unless they render the trial so fundamentally unfair as to constitute a denial of federal constitutional rights.”
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'habeas proceedings may not be used to set aside a state conviction on the basis of erroneous jury instructions unless the errors had the effect of rendering the trial so fundamentally unfair as to cause a denial of a fair trial in the constitutional sense.'”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “state court errors which deprived him of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.”
    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.