Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 658 F.2d 337 - Panzavecchia v. Wainwright

Panzavecchia v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis

658 F.2d 337 · 1981

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
3
states following
June 2009
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably 39 Cal. 4th 826 - People v. Rogers (2006), United States v. Lewis (1986)

39 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

450198119902000decided

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 Townsend v. Sain · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Brown v. Allen

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

  1. “Had the two offenses been tried separately, the counterfeiting conviction would never be admitted in the murder trial. However, as it turned out, the jury heard repeated references to the defendant’s criminal past without any limiting instruction to relate this evidence only to the firearm violation and to disregard it altogether in considering the murder count. The proper balance between judicial economy and the prejudicial effect of evidence of prior convictions was not struck in this instance. The prejudice which Florida and the federal courts have proscribed clearly existed and this prejudice rose to such a level as to make the petitioner’s trial fundamentally unfair and in violation of the fourteenth amendment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a] state's interpretation of its own laws or rules provides no basis for federal habeas corpus relief, since no question of a constitutional nature is involved.”
    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.