Lowery v. Wj Estelle’s Empirical Analysis
696 F.2d 333 · 1983
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably Lott v. Coyle (2001), Hernandez v. Ylst (1991)
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Wainwright v. Sykes · Santobello v. New York · Burks v. United States · Ashe v. Swenson
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n absence of jurisdiction in the convicting court is ... a basis for federal habeas corpus relief cognizable under the due process clause,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the fact-finder or an appellate court decides that the prosecution has not proved its case, either in entirety, Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978), or in part, Green [v. U.S., 355 U.S. 184 at 189-91 ], 78 S.Ct. [221] at 225 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957) ], the defendant is protected fi*om reprosecution to the extent of that acquittal. Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430 [442-44], 101 S.Ct. 1852, 1860 , 68 L.Ed.2d 270 (1981). The Supreme Court has defined acquittal as ‘“the ruling of a judge, whatever its label, [which] actually represents a resolution [in the defendant’s favor], correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged.’ Martin Linen [United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 , 97 S.Ct. 1349 , 51 L.Ed.2d 642 ], 430 U.S. at 571 , 97 S.Ct. at 1355 .” United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 [96], 98 S.Ct. 2187, 2197 , 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hackleman v. State“We can perceive no constraints imposed by the double jeopardy clause on the scope of the subsequent prosecution after a defendant, once convicted of all that was charged, voluntarily and successfully challenges that first conviction on grounds other than insufficiency of the 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.