Dick v. Scroggy’s Empirical Analysis
882 F.2d 192 · 1989
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably Thomas Clyde Bowling, Jr. v. Phillip Parker, Warden (2003), United States v. Lilly (1992)
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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 Strickland v. Washington · Berger v. United States · McNabb v. United States · Tumey v. State of Ohio · United States v. Addonizio
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A financial interest that would disqualify a judge, under cases such as Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927), and Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 , 93 S.Ct. 80 , 34 L.Ed.2d 267 (1972), may be “too remote and insubstantial to violate the constitutional constraints applicable to the decisions of [one] performing prosecutorial functions.” Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 243-44 , 100 S.Ct. 1610, 1614 , 64 L.Ed.2d 182 (1980). Prosecutors, in an adversary system, “are necessarily permitted to be zealous in their enforcement of the law.” Id. at 248 , 100 S.Ct. at 1616 . Prosecutors are supposed to be advocates; judges are not. Thus it is not without significance, in our view, that in the landmark case of Turney v. Ohio, supra, where the mayor of the Village of North College Hill, Ohio, received significant sums from fines assessed in cases tried in the “mayor’s court” over which he presided, it was the financial interest of the mayor, sitting as a judge, that led the Supreme Court to hold that convictions obtained in the mayor’s court were constitutionally infirm; although the prosecutor received more than twice as much as the mayor out of the fines assessed, the prosecutor’s financial interest evoked no critical comment from the Supreme Court. [Dick v. Scroggy, 882 F.2d 192, 197 (6th Cir.1989).]”
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.