Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 665 F.2d 90 - Delk v. Atkinson

Delk v. Atkinson’s Empirical Analysis

665 F.2d 90 · 1981

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
3
states following
August 2009
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably James Howard Turner v. State of Tennessee (1988), Evans v. Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County (1992)

34 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

260198119902000decided

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 · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · North Carolina v. Pearce · Burks v. United States · Benton v. Maryland

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

  1. “[s]everal courts including this one have indicated that where it is claimed on appeal from a federal conviction that the evidence was insufficient, the reviewing court is required to decide the sufficiency question even though there might be other grounds for reversal which would not preclude retrial.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[T]he applicant is entitled to habeas corpus relief if it is found that upon the record evidence adduced at trial no rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.”
    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.