Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 850 F.2d 470 - Walker v. Endell

Walker v. Endell’s Empirical Analysis

850 F.2d 470 · 1987

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
3
states following
May 2016
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Cargle v. Mullin (2003), United States v. Dixon (2000)

48 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

4201987199020002010decided

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 Blockburger v. United States · Wainwright v. Sykes · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Engle v. Isaac · Cupp v. Naughten

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

  1. “`Thus, a defendant can restrain another with the intent to inflict injury, in the sense that he knows that his actions will lead to injury or that his purpose is to cause injury, but act in this manner in order to comply with the demands of another.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “unless 'the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[wjhere a statute identifies knowledge as the only mental element necessary for commission of the crime, it is not a violation of due process to require a defendant to bear the burden of proving duress by a preponderance of the evidence. The prosecution is not thereby unconstitutionally relieved of proving its case because duress is an affirmative defense which excuses the defendant’s conduct without negating his criminal knowledge.”
    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.