Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 791 F.2d 722 - Knaubert v. Goldsmith

Knaubert v. Goldsmith’s Empirical Analysis

791 F.2d 722 · 1986

Citation profile

73
cited by 73 later decisions
3
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

49 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Tinsley v. Borg (1990), Dyer v. Calderon (1998)

49 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

4101986199020002010decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Haines v. Kerner · Townsend v. Sain · Stone v. Powell · Sandstrom v. Montana

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

  1. “[N]ot every finding of fact need be stated on the record in infinite detail and clarity. In certain circumstances we will recognize that a factual determination is implicit in the actions taken by a state court.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Fed.R.Civ.P.] 15[ (a) ]'s policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality.' " United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977 , 979 (9th Cir.1981) (quotations omitted). Moreover, "[t]he district court is required to construe a pro se petition more liberally than it would construe a petition drafted by counsel.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[N]o sort of factual finding ... is more appropriate for deferential treatment than is a state court's credibility determination.”
    2 later decisions 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.