Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 803 F.2d 416 - Franklin v. White

Franklin v. White’s Empirical Analysis

803 F.2d 416 · 1986

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
October 2008
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 2008

12 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

130198619902000decided

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 Herrmann v. United States · State v. Baker · State v. Goddard · State v. Daugherty · Franklin v. State

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

  1. “Before the trial, [petitioner] filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds; the motion averred that he was awaiting trial on murder first degree. At trial, both the prosecutor and [petitioner's] attorney proceeded as if [petitioner] were charged with the offense of murder first degree. The jury was given instructions for first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter on Count I. No instruction for capital murder was requested or submitted. Finally, at the post conviction relief evidentiary hearing, [petitioner] testified he told his trial attorney when they first met that he understood that a warrant charging him with first degree murder and robbery had been issued.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The omission of any express mention of felony murder from the indictment ... did not affect any of the [the defendant's] substantial rights.... In the federal courts such a de facto amendment of an indictment might raise serious problems, but the Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require the states to use grand-jury indictments at all, even to prosecute serious crimes.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'right to reasonable notice of the charge against him ... is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and thus cannot be abridged by the states.'”
    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.