Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 864 F.2d 974 - Innes v. Dalsheim

Innes v. Dalsheim’s Empirical Analysis

864 F.2d 974 · 1988

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
4
states following
September 2019
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably United States v. Rexach (1990), United States v. Khan (1990)

31 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

3201988199020002010decided

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 Boykin v. Alabama · Johnson v. Zerbst · Brady v. United States · Santobello v. New York · McMann v. Richardson

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

  1. “First, it must be determined precisely what was provided [in the plea agreement] .... Next it must be ascertained whether there was a material breach of the agreement_ Finally, it must be demonstrated that the waiver of rights incident to the plea was the product of defendant’s free and intelligent choice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he state must bear the burden for any lack of clarity in the agreement. . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the substantial constitutional interests implicated by plea agreements.”
    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.