Kirk v. Burge’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Williams v. Taylor · Faretta v. California · United States v. Wade · Mapp v. Ohio
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fischer v. Forrest“a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fischer v. Forrest
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.