Stumpf v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

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

1. “is not subject to proscription under the Due Process Clause unless 'it offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.' " Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 , 201–02, 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977) (quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 , 54 S.Ct. 330 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934) (Cardozo, J.)); see also Medina, 505 U.S. at 443 , 112 S.Ct. 2572 . Stumpf, at 748. {¶36} In a footnote, the Sixth District further noted: There are two species of due-process claims in criminal cases. State action that "shocks the conscience”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Helms

2. “In the field of criminal law, [the Supreme Court has] defined the category of infractions that violate 'fundamental fairness' very narrowly based on the recognition that, beyond the specific guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the Due Process Clause has limited operation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Helms

3. “deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Castano