Kelly v. Neubert’s Empirical Analysis
898 F.2d 15 · 1990
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably United States v. Vontsteen (1992), United States v. Davis (1997)
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · United Families of America v. Kendrick · Andrijevic v. Kelleran · Brendale v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation · Marino v. Ortiz
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Like the First and Seventh Circuits, we believe Pearce `s per se prophylactic rule should not be mechanically applied when some of the defendant's individual sentences are increased, but his aggregate sentence is reduced on remand following a successful appeal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a defendant is convicted of more than one count of a multicount indictment, the district court is likely to fashion a sentencing package in which sentences on individual counts are interdependent. When, on appeal, one or more counts of a multicount conviction are reversed and one or more counts are affirmed, the result is an “unbundled” sentencing package. Because the sentences are interdependent, the reversal of convictions underlying some, but not all, of the sentences renders the sentencing package ineffective in carrying out the district court’s sentencing intent as to any one of the sentences on the affirmed convictions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Matter of Craig · Gray v. State“that a restructuring of a sentence does not trigger the Pearce rule when the aggregate sentence is less than that originally imposed and there is no evidence of vindictiveness on the part of the sentencing court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Owens v. State
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.