Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 626 F.2d 1375 - Thomas v. Cardwell

Thomas v. Cardwell’s Empirical Analysis

626 F.2d 1375 · 1980

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
states following
February 2009
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently February 2009 · most notably United States v. Michael S. Polizzi, United States of America v. Joseph E. Matranga (1986), United States v. Koon (1994)

23 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

200198019902000decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 2312 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States · Ohio v. Roberts · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois

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

  1. “some evidence of impropriety on the part of the County Attorney's Office, especially the actions of Neubauer ... Neubauer appears to have engaged in such activity and sought to conceal what he thought were his tacit arrangements with Sommer from being disclosed at appellant's trial ... '[N]o purpose would be served by requiring a new trial simply because an inept prosecutor incorrectly believed he was suppressing a fact that would be vital to the defense. If the suppression of evidence results in constitutional error, it is because of the character of the evidence, not the character of the prosecutor'.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Given our prior finding that appellant's case was not adversely affected by the alleged improprieties of the state's attorneys, we are precluded from granting appellant's request for relief on the basis of the mere presence of prosecutorial misconduct without any concomitant prejudice to the accused.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “there was substantial compliance with the confrontation requirement and sufficient indicia of reliability so that the jury in [King's] second trial was afforded a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truthfulness of [Gayden's and Brown's] prior testimony.”
    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.