Marshall v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
833 F.2d 709 · 1987
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently May 2010
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Ohio v. Roberts · Dutton v. Evans · Rice v. Norman Williams Co. · Bradley v. J. F. Batte & Sons of Richmond, Inc.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“hearsay testimony does not violate the confrontation clause if the prosecution can show 1) that the declarant was unavailable and 2) that the testimony bears adequate 'indicia of reliability.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Fairman
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.