Fleming v. Kemp’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2012 · most notably Ex Parte Branch (1987), 522 So. 2d 18 - State v. Slappy (1988)
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 23 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. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Wainwright v. Witt · Swain v. State of Alabama · Sanders v. United States
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"First, the court found that because all black jurors were not excluded from Fleming's jury as they were in Batson , the latter case did not apply. But nothing in Batson compels the district court's conclusion that constitutional guarantees are never abridged if all black jurors but one or two are struck because of their race. On the contrary, Batson restates the principle that ' "[a] single invidiously discriminatory governmental act" is not *Page 350 "immunized by the absence of such discrimination in the making of other comparable decisions." ' Batson, supra , 106 S.Ct. at 1722 , quoting Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp. , 429 U.S. 252 , 266 , n. 14, 97 S.Ct. 555 , 564 , n. 14, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977). We cannot agree that Batson may be rendered a priori inapplicable by a prosecutorial game of numbers." Fleming v. Kemp , 794 F.2d 1478 , 1483 (11th Cir. 1986).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“are defined by objective factors, such as whether there was a full and fair hearing on the original petition or whether there was an intervening change in the facts of the case or the applicable law. 9 Id. at 1481-82 (quoting Witt v. Wainwright, 755 F.2d 1396, 1397 (11th Cir.1985)). 10 No doubt exists that this ground was raised in a previous proceeding and that the decision was on the merits. Thus, abuse is excused only if the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the failure to present the ground in the prior proceeding was neither the result of an intentional abandonment or withholding nor the product of inexcusable neglect”
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.