Frey v. Leapley’s Empirical Analysis
931 F.2d 1253 · 1991
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably Maes v. Thomas (1995), Nickerson v. Ta Lee (1992)
23 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Hill v. United States · Hester v. United States · United States Means v. Solem · State v. Frey
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Ujnder the case law related to habeas proceedings, the trial court’s refusal to give a requested instruction must have “amount[ed] to a fundamental defect which inherently result[ed] in a complete miscarriage of justice, [or] an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[f]ailure to give an appropriate theory-of-defense instruction, without more, is not a violation of the Due Process Clause.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a federal constitutional right was not adequately protected by the instructions given to the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Miller v. Leapley
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.