Glenn v. Dallman’s Empirical Analysis
686 F.2d 418 · 1982
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably State v. Hinckley (1985), United States v. Mentz (1988)
23 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
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 Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Holland v. United States · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Sandstrom v. Montana
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“matter of federal due process.” Berrier v. Egeler, 583 F.2d 515 , 521 (6th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Warden v. Berrier, 439 U.S. 955 , 99 S.Ct. 354 , 58 L.Ed.2d 347 (1978). 5 . In Glenn v. Dallman, 686 F.2d 418 , 421 (6th Cir.1982), this court said: Where a jury sits as the finder of fact in a criminal trial, the court’s instructions to the jury concerning the necessary elements of the crime charged are the only means of assuring that the State is put to its burden of establishing every element of the crime. 6 . See Schwachter v. United States, 237 F.2d 640 , 644 (6th Cir.1956) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If there is any possibility that “adverse collateral legal consequences” will flow from a prior conviction a defendant has sufficient stake in challenging that conviction to prevent the case becoming moot even though the defendant is no longer in custody or under parole. [Citations omitted.] As the Supreme Court recognized in Carafas, a prior conviction may place numerous legal disabilities and burdens on a habeas corpus petitioner’s civil liberties that he would not have if his conviction were expunged. If petitioner in the present case were entitled to complete eradication of any felony conviction from his record ... then quite clearly petitioner would have the substantial stake in challenging his conviction required to save this proceeding from mootness. Glenn v. Dallman at 422-423.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gentry v. Deuth“It is a fundamental Constitutional law that no one may be convicted of a crime absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute that crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.