Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 91 F.3d 898 - Emerson v. Gramley

Emerson v. Gramley’s Empirical Analysis

91 F.3d 898 · 1996

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
3
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably 183 Ill. 2d 366 - People v. Coleman (1998), State v. Cowans (1999)

41 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

560199620002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Cronic · Darden v. Wainwright · Lockhart v. Fretwell · Ylst v. Nunnemaker

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

  1. “requires federal courts 'to give greater deference to the determinations made by state courts than they were required to do under the previous law.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the fell consequences of failing to establish some mitigating circumstances without which (because the evidence of aggravating circumstances was overwhelming) a sentence of death was certain unless the jury disobeyed the judge’s instructions.” Emerson, 91 F.3d at 906 . As a result, the decision to forgo the presentation of mitigating evidence could not be considered a”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The narratives that defense counsel and their `mitigation specialists' present often contain material that the jury is likely to consider aggravating rather than mitigating.”
    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.