Rock v. Coombe’s Empirical Analysis
694 F.2d 908 · 1982
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably Vito Matarese v. Eugene Lefevre (1986), Graham v. Solem (1984)
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 · Wainwright v. Sykes · Rose v. Lundy · Sandstrom v. Montana · Cupp v. Naughten
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A supplemental charge must be viewed in a special light. It will enjoy special prominence in the minds of the jurors for several reasons. First, it will have been the most recent, or among the most recent, bit of instruction they will have heard, and will thus be freshest in their minds. Moreover, it will have been isolated from the other instructions they have heard, thus bringing it into the foreground of their thoughts. Because supplemental instructions are generally brief and are given during a break in the jury’s deliberations, they will be received by the jurors with heightened alertness rather than with the normal attentiveness which may well flag from time to time during a lengthy initial charge. And most importantly, the supplemental charge will normally be accorded special emphasis by the jury because it will generally have been given in response to a question from the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“must dismiss such ‘mixed petitions,’ leaving the prisoner with the choice of returning to state court to exhaust his claims or of amending or resubmitting the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims to the district court.” 455 U.S. at 510, 102 S.Ct. at 1199. See also Rock v. Coombe, 694 F.2d 908, 914 (2d Cir.1982), cert, denied 460 U.S. 1083 , 103 S.Ct. 1773 , 76 L.Ed.2d 345 (1983). Petitioner by his attorney in a letter dated July 10, 1986 has informed me that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mills v. Scully“the abandonment of claims on which the district court ha[d] already refused to rule, in order to have that court reiterate its ruling on the exhausted claim it ha[d] already decided.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Shears v. Israel
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.