Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 736 F.2d 1264 - Williams v. Al Lockhart

Williams v. Al Lockhart’s Empirical Analysis

736 F.2d 1264 · 1984

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
May 2001
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2001 · most notably Scott Timothy Berrisford v. Frank W. Wood, Warden (1987), Amos v. State of Minnesota (1988)

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

190198419902000decided

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 Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno · Manson v. Brathwaite · Cupp v. Naughten

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

  1. “'fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice [or] an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[C]onvictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside ... only if the photographic identification was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.”
    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.