Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 677 F.2d 410 - Nettles v. Wainwright

Nettles v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis

677 F.2d 410 · 1982

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
March 2015
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably Lorin Corporation v. Goto & Company, Ltd. (1983), Egert v. Connecticut General Life Insurance (1990)

17 federal appellate · 1 district ·

3601982199020002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno · Wainwright v. Sykes · Manson v. Brathwaite

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

  1. “crucial, critical, highly significant factor”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a federal court in a habeas corpus case will not review the trial court's actions in the admission of evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following pretrial identification by photographs will be set aside on that ground only if the identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.”
    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.