Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 716 F.2d 1528 - Ross v. Hopper

Ross v. Hopper’s Empirical Analysis

716 F.2d 1528 · 1983

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
August 2006
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2006 · most notably Pulley v. Harris (1984), Campbell v. Kincheloe (1987)

34 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

540198319902000decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States · Wainwright v. Sykes · Townsend v. Sain

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

  1. “examining the individual culpability of the defendant, as did the Supreme Court in Enmund, we conclude that the punishment was not disproportionate in relation to Hall's participation in the crime.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “First, a fact pertaining to his federal constitutional claim was not adequately developed at the state court hearing and that the fact was 'material' ... and second, that failure to develop that material fact at the state proceeding was not attributable to petitioner's inexcusable neglect or deliberate bypass.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “that the pretrial publicity has not been 'so inflammatoiy and pervasive as to raise a presumption of prejudice’ among the potential jury venire in the case.”
    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.