Bennett v. Angelone’s Empirical Analysis
92 F.3d 1336 · 1996
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Byrd v. Collins (2000), State v. Ceballos (2003)
34 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Wainwright v. Sykes · Townsend v. Sain · Teague v. Lane · Landgraf v. USI Film Products
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining whether a closing argument by a prosecutor violates due process, this court must look to “whether the proceeding at issue was rendered fundamentally unfair by the improper argument.” This determination requires the court to look to “the nature of the comments, the nature and quantum of evidence before the jury, the arguments of closing counsel, the judge’s charge, and whether the errors were isolated or repeated.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“establishes a quid-pro-quo relationship: A state seeking greater federal deference to its habeas decisions in capital cases must, by appointing competent counsel to represent indigent petitioners, further ensure that its own habeas proceedings are meaningful.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor,” that court must be deemed to have implicitly ruled on the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.