Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 805 F.2d 506 - Reddix v. Thigpen

Reddix v. Thigpen’s Empirical Analysis

805 F.2d 506 · 1986

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
2
states following
February 2003
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently February 2003 · most notably United States v. Aguilera-Zapata (1990), Wiley v. Puckett (1992)

18 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

220198619902000decided

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

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Townsend v. Sain · Sandstrom v. Montana · Dusky v. United States · Smith v. Phillips

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

  1. “a lesser included offense instruction should be given 'if the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find [a defendant] guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the jury [in a capital case] must be permitted to consider a verdict of guilt of a noncapital offense 'in every case' in which 'the evidence would have supported such a verdict.' " Although Beck, strictly speaking, "holds only that a state cannot impose a blanket ban on the giving of lesser-included-offense instructions in a capital case,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “... since the Mississippi Courts did not find that Reddix had a personal intent to kill, Bullock actually commands exactly the relief that we awarded: allowing the state court to address the question in the first instance. Id. [106 S.Ct.] at 699. Our mention of a jury hearing on remand to the state courts should not be taken to require a jury determination of this issue, however. Id., at 700.”
    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.