Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 805 F.2d 1426 - Demps v. Wainwright

Demps v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis

805 F.2d 1426 · 1986

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
3
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably United States v. Schlei (1997), United States v. Terzado-Madruga (1990)

13 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

1201986199020002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Giglio v. United States · Wainwright v. Sykes · Townsend v. Sain · Delaware v. Van Arsdall

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

  1. “the district court can find material facts implied in a state court opinion where the following two conditions are met: (1) the state court has decided petitioner's constitutional claim on the merits; (2) the state court's view of the facts is plain from the opinion or other indicia.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[substantial interference with a defense witness’s free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process rights of the defendant. When such a violation of due process rights occurs, a court must reverse the conviction without regard to prejudice to the defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[s]ubstantial [government] interference with a defense witness' free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process rights of the defendant. If such a due process violation occurs, the court must reverse without regard to prejudice to the defendants.”
    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.