Adamson v. Ricketts’s Empirical Analysis
789 F.2d 722 · 1986
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably Ricketts v. Adamson (1987), Iaea v. Sunn (1986)
23 federal appellate · 3 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Boykin v. Alabama · Johnson v. Zerbst · Blockburger v. United States · Townsend v. Sain
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[s]hould the defendant refuse to testify or should he at any time testify untruthfully . . . then this entire agreement is null and void and the original charge will be automatically reinstated.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n the event this agreement becomes null and void, then the parties shall be returned to the positions they were in before this agreement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is fully aware of the fact that your office may feel that he has not completed his obligations under the plea agreement ... and, further, that your office may attempt to withdraw the plea agreement from him, [and] that he may be prosecuted for the killing of Donald Bolles on a first degree murder charge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Adamson v. Ricketts
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.