Fendler v. Goldsmith’s Empirical Analysis
728 F.2d 1181 · 1983
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2012 · most notably Taylor v. Illinois (1988), 32 Ohio St. 3d 1 - City of Lakewood v. Papadelis (1987)
42 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 · Neil v. Biggers · Townsend v. Sain · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Chambers v. Mississippi
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the outset we emphasize that for a balancing test to meet Sixth Amendment standards, it must begin with a presumption against exclusion of otherwise admissible defense evidence. No other approach adequately protects the right to present a defense. See Washington v. Texas, [ 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coleman v. State · McCarty v. State“In those cases where preclusion of testimony by defense witnesses is permitted, it is usually because the integrity of the evidence involved has been threatened. In cases involving defense violations of witnesses sequestration orders, for example, courts may preclude the witnesses involved from testifying if their testimony was tainted by the lack of sequestration.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Supreme Court has specifically upheld such rules though leaving open the question of what sanctions are permissible because of the special tendency of unexpected alibi defenses to cause unfair surprise and lengthy trial delays.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCarty v. State
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.