Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 609 F.2d 594 - Finetti v. Harris

Finetti v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

609 F.2d 594 · 1979

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
5
states following
September 2008
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently September 2008 · most notably Klein v. Harris (1981), United States Fitzgerald v. Jordan M (1984)

7 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

2701979198019902000decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Picard v. Connor · Arizona v. Washington · Bullock v. United States · Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba

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

  1. “[Ojnce a state provides for bail [pending appeal], the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments impose certain limitations on the state court’s discretion to grant or refuse bail. Since we perceive no constitutional distinction between requiring excessive bail and denying bail altogether in the absence of legitimate reasons, it follows that appellant could not have been arbitrarily or unreasonably denied bail consistent with his constitutional rights.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. ““A defendant is not entitled as of right to bail pending appeal. The application for a certificate to stay execution is granted as a matter of discretion. This defendant made application twice to Presiding Justice Mollen, who denied the applications_ CPL 460.50 states that such an application may be made only once. A second application for bail pending appeal may not be made under the guise of a habeas corpus application.””
    1 later decision 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.