Manning v. Caldwell’s Empirical Analysis
900 F.3d 139 · 2018
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 34 U.S.C. § 20913 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Paul v. Davis · Ingraham v. Wright · Marks v. United States · Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County North Carolina
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Joshua also contends that the state court ignored his mental illness [schizophrenia ], which rendered him unable to control his behavior, and his sentence was actually a penalty for his illness .... This contention is without merit because, in contrast to Robinson , where a statute specifically criminalized addiction, Joshua was convicted of a criminal offense separate and distinct from his 'status' as a schizophrenic.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“requires this court to hold that Virginia's statutory scheme imposes cruel and unusual punishment because it criminalizes [plaintiffs'] status as homeless alcoholics.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a statute banning public drunkenness would be unconstitutional as applied to them. Id . (emphasis added). In those circumstances, the statute would, in effect,”
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.