Cunningham v. Peters’s Empirical Analysis
941 F.2d 535 · 1991
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 2015
11 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Chambers v. Mississippi · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Bibby v. United States · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]his case presents a conflict between the rights of criminal defendants under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to present evidence in their own defense and the state's 'sovereign prerogative' to regulate the presentation of evidence in its courts”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stephens v. Miller“Our task is to evaluate the exculpatory significance of relevant and competent evidence and then balance it against the competing state interest in the procedural rule that prevented the defendant from presenting this evidence at trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Klagiss v. Trigg“if a confession is sturdy enough for the state to use in its own case--if it is the sort of evidence that prosecutors regularly use against defendants--then defendants are entitled to use it for their own purposes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Carson v. Peters
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.