Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 786 F.2d 1317 - Joyner v. King

Joyner v. King’s Empirical Analysis

786 F.2d 1317 · 1986

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
June 2017
most recently cited

22 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Dennis Thurl Dowthitt v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (2000), Barrientes v. Johnson (2000)

22 federal appellate ·

1901986199020002010decided

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) · 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on Giglio v. United States · Townsend v. Sain · Stone v. Powell · Rose v. Lundy · California v. Southland Royalty Co.

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

  1. “new factual allegations in support of a previously asserted legal theory”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When the credibility of a [prosecution] witness is a critical issue in a criminal case and proof of any understanding or agreement [between the witness and the prosecution] is relevant to a witness’ credibility, the defendant has a right to bring this to the jury’s attention____ To deny the defendant the opportunity to present to the jury any promises, agreements, and understanding between the [prosecution] and a key prosecution witness deprives the defendant of due process of law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “in a significantly different and stronger evidentiary posture than it was before the state courts.”
    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.