Spencer v. Kemp’s Empirical Analysis
781 F.2d 1458 · 1986
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2013 · most notably Amadeo v. Zant (1988), Osborn v. Shillinger (1988)
43 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. § 1861 (Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 1867 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Wainwright v. Sykes · Gregg v. Georgia · Fay v. Noia · Witherspoon v. Illinois
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Novelty in procedural requirements cannot be permitted to thwart review in this Court applied for by those who in justified reliance upon prior decisions, seek vindication in state courts of their federal constitutional rights.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'waiver law in effect at the time of the asserted waiver.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Except for objections relating to the composition of a grand or traverse jury, rights conferred or secured by the Constitution of the United States shall not be deemed to have been waived unless it is shown that there was an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege which relinquishment or abandonment was participated in by the party and was done voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. The right to object to the composition of the grand or traverse jury will be deemed waived under this section, unless the person challenging the sentence shows in the petition and satisfies the court that cause exists for his being allowed to pursue the objection after the conviction and sentence has [sic] otherwise become final.”
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.