Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 931 F.2d 262 - West v. Wright

West v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

931 F.2d 262 · 1991

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
January 2010
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2010 · most notably Wright v. West (1992), Holland v. McGinnis (1992)

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

260199120002010decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Teague v. Lane · Picard v. Connor · Leary v. United States

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

  1. “[a]ny challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to convict in a state prosecution is necessarily a due process challenge to the conviction.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “may occasionally convict even when it can be said that no rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If you belie[ve] from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that property of a value of $100.00 or more was stolen from Angelo F. C[a]rdova, and that it was recently thereafter found in the exclusive and personal possession of the defendant, and that such possession has been unexplained or falsely denied by the defendant, then such possession is sufficient to raise an inference that the defendant was the thief; and if such inference, taking into consideration the whole evidence, leads you to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the theft, then you shall find the defendant guilty.”
    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.