Birr v. Shillinger’s Empirical Analysis
894 F.2d 1160 · 1990
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently October 2014
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Missouri v. Hunter · Ohio v. Johnson · Banner v. Davis
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n assessing whether a state legislature intended to prescribe cumulative punishments for a single, criminal incident, we are bound by a state court's determination of the legislature's intent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“does no more than prevent the sentencing court from prescribing greater punishment than the legislature intended.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We are bound to accept the [State] court's construction of that State's statutes.”
2 later decisions 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.