Langley v. Prince’s Empirical Analysis
890 F.3d 504 · 2018
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Burks v. United States · Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · Green 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the rule of collateral estoppel in criminal cases is not to be applied with the hypertechnical and archaic approach of a 19th century pleading book, but with realism and rationality.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Langley v. Prince“[i]f you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that [Langley] is guilty of first degree murder, your verdict should be 'guilty.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Langley v. Prince“), see La. R.S. 14:30.1(A)(1), or (1) killing a human being (2) while committing or attempting certain enumerated felonies (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Langley v. Prince
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.