Cremeans v. Chapleau’s Empirical Analysis
62 F.3d 167 · 1995
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently February 2010 · most notably United States v. Ford (1999), Walker v. Attorney General for Oklahoma (1999)
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
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 Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri · Sumner v. Mata · Carter v. Nesby · Carter v. Nesby
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[R]etrospective determination may satisfy the requirements of due process provided it is based on evidence related to observations made or knowledge possessed at the time of trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Reed v. Champion · Edwards v. State“contemporaneous medical reports; the testimony of the presiding trial judge and the defendant's attorney; and the transcript of the penalty hearing held before the jury including the testimony of the petitioner”
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.