Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 662 F.2d 420 - Fuller v. Anderson

Fuller v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

662 F.2d 420 · 1981

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
April 2018
most recently cited

20 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2018 · most notably Spalla v. Foltz (1986), Davis v. Lafler (2011)

20 federal appellate ·

1601981199020002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Holland v. United States · Sumner v. Mata

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

  1. “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'This suggests , as Jeffrey Coleman surmised, that the petitioner may have been acting as a lookout for Meadows. It is reasonable speculation. But could a rational jury find it to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt? No evidence was presented that the petitioner intended to burn the Turner home. The evidence that he knew that Zerious Meadows planned to do [sic] is simply too meager to support conviction.' (emphasis in original) 5”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “Moreover, there was no direct evidence that the youths approached the Turner house with intent to set the house on fire. Assuming Zerious Meadows had this intent, however, there was no evidence that it was shared by petitioner or the other boys. 7”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.