Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 894 F.2d 1477 - Kindred v. Spears

Kindred v. Spears’s Empirical Analysis

894 F.2d 1477 · 1990

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
September 2025
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably United States v. Gallo (1991), Gambino v. Morris (1998)

18 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

1901990200020102020decided

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

Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · United States v. Nixon · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Truong Dinh Hung v. United States · Board of Pardons v. Allen

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

  1. “As a matter of logic, vindictiveness becomes a danger only where an event prods [the Commission] into a posture of self-vindication. Absent a triggering event, the court will not presume vindictiveness. " Id. at 417.(internal quotation and citation omitted). "Where there is no reasonable likelihood, the burden remains upon the defendant to prove actual vindictiveness.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Reversal on appeal or an order to the lower tribunal to grant a new hearing . . . constitutes a salient triggering event.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “acts as an aid to defendants who would otherwise have to shoulder a heavy burden of proof,”
    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.