Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 615 F.2d 722 - Corbett v. Bordenkircher

Corbett v. Bordenkircher’s Empirical Analysis

615 F.2d 722 · 1980

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
6
states following
December 2019
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably Daye v. Attorney General of New York (1982), Del Vecchio v. Illinois Department of Corrections (1994)

22 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

2001980199020002010decided

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 Davis v. Alaska · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. v. Strachan Shipping Co. · Drew v. United States · California v. Arizona

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. “confounded his defense because he desired to testify as to some counts and not as to others”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the judge had, in the past as a county attorney and as a commonwealth attorney, prosecuted [the petitioner] for crimes in four instances ... one of which convictions was relied upon as a basis for charging [the petitioner] with being an habitual offender”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “hold that simply because a trial judge has prosecuted a defendant in the past in performing his duty as a public official, due process requires that the judge recuse himself.”
    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.