Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 883 F.2d 900 - Stano v. Dugger

Stano v. Dugger’s Empirical Analysis

883 F.2d 900 · 1989

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
3
states following
February 2012
most recently cited

1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 2012

1 district · 4 state decisions

1301989199020002010decided

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 · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States

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

  1. “if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would be different. A 'reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “circumstances is this inmate to talk to ANY DETECTIVE--POLICE OFFICER--FEDERAL AGENT--STATE ATTORNEY OFFICE or ANY ATTORNEY. All appointments for this inmate to speak to ANY person will be arranged and handled by Sergeant Paul Crow”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Sergeant Crow will handle all telephone calls, visitors, etc. He will have NO contact with anyone, except jail personnel, in the normal course of security checks.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.