Bibby v. Tard’s Empirical Analysis
741 F.2d 26 · 1984
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2019
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Townsend v. Sain · Rose v. Lundy · United States v. Tucker · Townsend v. Burke
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As to this item of misinformation, unlike the alleged misstatement of Bibby’s record, we cannot say that by itself it was material under the principle of Townsend v. Burke, supra. The court’s statement refers to the “aggravating circumstances” of Bibby’s holding the gun at the neck of his female victim while his codefendant cleaned out the safe. We believe that the court’s statement can reasonably be interpreted to be an expression of the court’s concern that the victim was placed in fear. This is clear from the court’s stress on the facts that the gun was held “at the neck” of the victim and that she was “female,” in addition to the fact that this was done while the other defendant rifled the safe. These facts add up to a situation creating fear in the mind of the victim. Moreover, we do not believe that the victim’s fear would have been materially lessened had she perceived that Bibby’s gun was not loaded. Thus whether the gun was loaded or not would not be material to this concern.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the district court must hold an evidentiary hearing where there is a material dispute of fact, unless the state court provided the petitioner a full and fair evidentiary hearing on the issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lesko v. Owens“did threaten bodily injury upon [victim], in the course of committing a theft, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S. 2C:15-1.”
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.