Palmer v. Grammer’s Empirical Analysis
863 F.2d 588 · 1988
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably United States v. Bishop (1992), United States v. Simpson (1990)
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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 Jackson v. Virginia · North Carolina v. Pearce · Burks v. United States · Benton v. Maryland · Tibbs v. Florida
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Double Jeopardy clause does not foreclose a retrial in this situation because the reviewing court must look to all the evidence, not just the legally admitted evidence, to determine whether a retrial is permitted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A properly exhausted and nonproeedurally barred claim by Palmer challenging the sufficiency of all the evidence in his first or second trial (or both) would constitute a cognizable double jeopardy claim.... We certainly do not decide, but only note that it is conceivable ... that the state did not muster enough evidence in Palmer’s first or second trials even to submit its case to the jury, so that ... Palmer should not have been retried. It is because of this possible double jeopardy violation that we remand this case rather than affirm outright the decision of the [district [cjourt. We recognize that any such amended petition must persuade the [djistrict [cjourt that Palmer has exhausted his state remedies. Because that issue is not properly before us, we express no opinion [on the issue]. If an amended petition is filed, it will be for the [djistrict [cjourt to determine whether Palmer has exhausted his state remedies (and, if he has not, whether there is a procedural bar) with respect to a double jeopardy claim based on the theory that the totality of the evidence at either his first or second trial (or both) was insufficient to warrant submission of the case to the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Palmer v. Clarke“`In light of the nature of the claim asserted and the restrictive nature of the double jeopardy clause, I fail to perceive how the petition could be amended to state a nonfrivolous double jeopardy claim.... Therefore, the motion for leave to amend the petition will be denied.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Palmer
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.