Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 71 F.3d 1502 - Castro v. Oklahoma

Castro v. Oklahoma’s Empirical Analysis

71 F.3d 1502 · 1995

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
2
states following
August 2014
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Victor Wayne Hooks v. Ron Ward (1999), Rogers v. Gibson (1999)

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

350199520002010decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Townsend v. Sain · Gregg v. Georgia · Brecht v. Abrahamson

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

  1. “could have made a threshold showing under Ake”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “when a defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial, the State must, at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[a]n expert must be appointed if the State presents evidence, psychiatric or otherwise, of the defendant's future dangerousness or continuing threat to society during the sentencing phase, and the indigent defendant establishes the likelihood his mental condition is a significant mitigating factor.”
    2 later decisions 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.