Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 947 F.2d 353 - Mikes v. Borg

Mikes v. Borg’s Empirical Analysis

947 F.2d 353 · 1991

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
6
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably United States v. Manning (1995), Bean v. Calderon (1998)

48 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions

7101991200020102020decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Honig v. Doe · Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Erie Lackawanna, Inc. · United States v. Miller · Borum 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[w]e have held that fingerprint evidence alone may under certain circumstances support a conviction.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a rational factfinder could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Wimberly's fingerprints were placed on the receipts and other items in the victim's car at the time of the commission of the crime.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “in a case resting upon the premise that the defendant impressed his fingerprints on an object at the time of the commission of the crime and supported solely by evidence that the defendant’s fingerprints were found on that object, the record must contain sufficient evidence to permit a jury, applying the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, to draw the inference that the defendant touched the object during the commission of the crime.”
    2 later decisions 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.