Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 822 F.2d 1418 - Prather v. Rees

Prather v. Rees’s Empirical Analysis

822 F.2d 1418 · 1987

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
August 2012
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably White v. Mitchell (2005), Bagby v. Sowders (1990)

34 federal appellate · 1 district ·

2901987199020002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Engle v. Isaac · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Sloan v. Hicks · Johnson v. Righetti

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

  1. “As a matter of Kentucky law, a defendant is entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction only if the evidence would permit a jury to reasonably find the defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense but acquit him of the greater offense. This meets the ‘warranting’ requirement under Hopper. Thus, if a reasonable jury, on the evidence presented, could have convicted Prather of attempted second-degree (unarmed) robbery and acquitted him of the attempted first-degree (armed) robbery charge, then Prather’s constitutional rights were violated when the trial court refused to give the lesser-included offense instruction and the habeas writ should issue.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Efficiency includes bringing criminal litigation to a final conclusion. To return this case to the district court for a hearing on exhaustion, possible state post-conviction remedies and perhaps another habeas corpus proceeding, would greatly and wastefully expend judicial resources.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Although the parties did not provide the court with copies of the state court briefs, this court may supplement the record when necessary.”
    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.