Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 706 F.3d 1099 - Smith v. Hedgpeth

Smith v. Hedgpeth’s Empirical Analysis

706 F.3d 1099 · 2013

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
2
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

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

Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blockburger v. United States · Williams v. Taylor · North Carolina v. Pearce · Ring v. Arizona

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

  1. “consider sentencing enhancements as an element of an offense for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “fairminded jurists could disagree as to the constitutional principle.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.