Rubin Carter and John Artis v. John J. Rafferty’s Empirical Analysis
781 F.2d 993 · 1986
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017
7 federal appellate · 1 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 4241 · 18 U.S.C. § 4246 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Relies on Michel v. State of Louisiana Poret · Rennie v. Klein · Rennie v. Klein · United States ex rel. Thomas v. New Jersey · Arkansas 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(d) Modification of initial order respecting custody. —An initial order respecting the custody or enlargement of the prisoner and any recognizance or surety taken, shall govern review in the court of appeals and in the Supreme Court unless for special reasons shown to the court of appeals or to the Supreme Court, or to a judge or justice of either court, the order shall be modified, or an independent order respecting custody, enlargement or surety shall be made.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Release of Prisoner Pending Review of Decision Ordering Release. Pending review of a decision ordering the release of a prisoner in such a proceeding, the prisoner shall be enlarged upon his recognizance, with or without surety, unless the court or justice or judge rendering the decision, or the court of appeals or the Supreme Court, or a judge or justice of either court shall otherwise order.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In those instances where the state is of the view that a petitioner should not, for other compelling reasons, remain at large, it may proceed before the state courts. Since questions of dangerousness per se and related issues are traditionally state concerns and since the victorious habeas petitioner generally still faces trial on a state indictment, the appropriate forum before which state authorities may seek relief is the state court with responsibility for pending or future proceedings concerning the underlying indictment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hilton v. Braunskill
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.