Celestine v. Butler’s Empirical Analysis
823 F.2d 74 · 1987
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably 538 So. 2d 329 - Pinkney v. State (1988), Clemons v. State (1988)
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Engle v. Isaac · Caldwell v. Mississippi · Zant v. Stephens · McCleskey v. Kemp · Jones v. Howard
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“while the movant need not always show a probability of success on the merits, he must present a substantial case on the merits when a serious legal question is involved and show that the balance of the equities [i.e. the other three factors] weighs heavily in the favor of granting the stay.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Whether the movant has made a showing of likelihood of success on the merits and of irreparable injury if the stay is not granted; (2) Whether the stay would substantially harm other parties; and (3) Whether granting the stay would serve the public interest.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"`How these issues are to be determined is settled under American constitutional law. Not a single argument is advanced directed at proving that the United States in these international agreements agreed to provide additional factors for decision or to modify the decisional factors required by the United States Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The argument is ingenious but content is wholly lacking.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wynn v. State · Ex Parte Pressley
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.