Dietz v. Warden’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2017 · most notably Connecticut v. Johnson (1983), United States Caruso v. Zelinsky (1982)
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Wainwright v. Sykes · Morissette v. United States · Sandstrom v. Montana
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The threshold inquiry in ascertaining the constitutional analysis applicable to this kind of jury instruction is to determine the nature of the presumption it describes. See Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 , 157-63, 99 S.Ct. 2213 , 2225, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979). That determination requires careful attention to the words actually spoken to the jury, see [Ulster County Court v. Allen, supra, 442 U.S. at 157-59, n.16, 99 S.Ct. 2213 , 2225, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 ], for whether a defendant has been accorded his constitutional rights depends upon the way in which a reasonable juror could have interpreted the instruction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nelson v. Solem“ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Langone v. Smith
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.