Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 686 F.3d 758 - Runningeagle v. Ryan

Runningeagle v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis

686 F.3d 758 · 2012

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Brady v. State of Maryland · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Bagley

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. “In the early morning of December 6, 1987, Runningeagle, [his cousin Corey] Tilden, and their two friends Orva and Milford Antone, were driving around Phoenix. Runningeagle wanted parts for his car, so the foursome stopped at the Davis house, which had a car parked outside. Runningeagle, Tilden and Orva got out of the car, while Milford remained passed out drunk in the back seat. Runningeagle used his large hunting knife to remove two carburetors from the Davis car. Orva put them and an air scoop in the trunk of Ruriningea-gle’s car. Tilden and Runningeagle also stole a floor jack and tool box. Orva took a bicycle from the open garage. Herbert and Jacqueline Williams, an elderly couple, lived next door to the Davises. Mr. Williams came out of his house and told the young men to leave or he would call the police. Orva returned to the car, but Runningeagle and Tilden approached Mr. Williams. Run-ningeagle concealed his knife by his side. Tilden carried a large, black flashlight. Runningeagle then began to tease and scare Mr. Williams with the knife. Mr. Williams retreated and told Runningea-gle to put the knife away. Mrs. Williams then came out of the house and yelled at them. Tilden confronted Mrs. Williams, argued with her, and then hit her on the side of the head with the flashlight. Mr. Williams told them to leave his wife alone, and helped her back into the house. Runningeagle broke through the Williams’ door with a tire iron, and he and Tilden barged in. The noise awakened”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he police found Runningeagle’s palm print on the clothes dryer next to the victims' bodies and matched Runningeagle’s shoes with the bloody shoe prints found at the house. Runningeagle discussed the crimes several times before his arrest and told his girlfriend — who testified at trial, and to whom he showed his car trunk full of the property stolen from the Williamses — that "he had been in a fight with two people and had hit them 'full-force.’ " When the police arrested Runnin-geagle, they found the Williamses’ stolen property. The evidence is even stronger in light of Antone’s testimony that Runningea-gle taunted and threatened the Williamses with his knife, waved the knife at them as they retreated, and then broke through the Williamses’ door with a tire iron after the Williamses tried to get away.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “... [W]e have explicitly concluded that Zafiro and Lane do not “establish a constitutional standard binding on the states and requiring severance' in cases where defendants present mutually antagonistic defenses.” Collins v. Runnels, 603 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir.2010). In reaching that holding, we found that the statement in Lane regarding when misjoinder rises to the level of constitutional violation was dicta and that Zafiro is not binding on the state courts because it addresses the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Id. at 1131-33. Neither decision is “clearly established Federal law” sufficient to support a habeas challenge under § 2254. Id.”
    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.