Stamper v. Baskerville’s Empirical Analysis
724 F.2d 1106 · 1984
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Litman v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance (1987), United States v. Kellington (2000)
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 Rose v. Lundy · Quern v. Jordan · In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co. · Donald Lee Harding v. State of North Carolina
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“vary it [the mandate] or examine it for any other purpose than execution; or give any other or further relief; or review it, even for apparent error, upon any matter decided on appeal; or intermeddle with it, further than to settle so much as has been remanded.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nor do we believe that In re Sanford should be read to permit a lower court to treat an issue not before the appellate court as 'a matter left open.' 160 U.S. at 255-56 , 16 S.Ct. at 293 . Were this the rule, a lower court could circumvent any and every order ... simply by passing on an issue not present on appeal. A lower court may decide 'matters left open' only insofar as they reflect proceedings consistent with the appellate court's mandate.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“only insofar as they reflect proceedings consistent with the appellate court's mandate. (Citations omitted.) 6 The bulk of the notes (about $200,000) was repaid by Zimpel, a general partner and guarantor 7 Under Sec. 8.3-601(3) of the Virginia Code,”
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.