Pinkney v. Keane’s Empirical Analysis
920 F.2d 1090 · 1990
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Fletcher v. Atex, Inc. (1995), Polizzi v. United States (1991)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Wainwright v. Sykes · Fay v. Noia · Murray v. Carrier
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“lack of incentive to litigate vigorously may render the collateral estoppel doctrine inoperative”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e believe that symmetry, while aesthetically pleasing, is a particularly inappropriate principle to invoke in a habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Habeas corpus is not a neutral proceeding in which the petitioner and the State stand on an equal footing. Rather, it is an asymmetrical enterprise in which a prisoner seeks to overturn a presumptively valid judgment of conviction. Because of this, the petitioner generally bears the burden of proof ■throughout' the habeas proceeding.... In addition, issuance of the writ is an extraordinary remedy, ... granted only in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion.... To constrain the State merely to impose some symmetry on an otherwise one-sided proceeding would be to substitute aesthetics for legal reasoning.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Zappulla v. New York“"[T]he purpose of a criminal court is ... to vindicate the public interest in the enforcement of the criminal law while at the same time safe-guarding the rights of the individual defendant. The public interest in the accuracy and justice of criminal results is greater than the concern for judicial economy professed in civil cases and we are thus inclined to reject, at least as a general matter, a rule that would spread the effect of an erroneous acquittal to all those who participated in a particular criminal transaction.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. York 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.