Jennings v. Maynard’s Empirical Analysis
946 F.2d 1502 · 1991
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 2015
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 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 Bruton v. United States · Ohio v. Roberts · Hughey v. United States · Thomas v. Southtrust Bank of Alabama · Samarzia v. Clark County
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although both the Oklahoma Code and Federal Rule 804(a)(2) normally require the court to order a witness to testify before a finding of unavailability is made, we conclude that such an order was not necessary in this case. During the in camera hearing, [the witness] testified that he would not obey a court order requiring him to testify.[ [9] ]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“we need not address whether hearsay evidence was properly admitted under the [Oklahoma Evidence Code] or whether admission would have been proper under the Federal Rules of Evidence; rather our inquiry is whether the admission of hearsay evidence deprived [the defendant] of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hatch v. Oklahoma“Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hatch v. Oklahoma
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.