Schwendeman v. Wallenstein’s Empirical Analysis
971 F.2d 313 · 1992
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably 30 Cal. 4th 43 - People v. Snow (2003), United States v. Warren (1994)
20 federal appellate · 12 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Rose v. Lundy · Picard v. Connor · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen · United States v. Rubio-Villareal · Middleton v. Cupp
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But instruction number 7 isolated speed as the only circumstance needed to permit the jury to find reckless driving and thereby convict Schwendeman. The jury was told, in effect, that it could ignore all the other evidence, consider only the evidence of Schwendeman's speed, and if it found Schwendeman was exceeding the speed limit, that was enough to convict him not of speeding, but of reckless driving.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although it is certainly true that excessive speed is probative of a jury's determination of recklessness, here we cannot say with substantial assurance that the inferred fact of reckless driving more likely than not flowed from the proved fact of excessive speed. Under Ulster County, the instruction was constitutionally deficient.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A person who drives in excess of the maximum lawful speed at the point of operation may be inferred to have driven in a reckless manner. "This inference is not binding upon you and it is for you to determine what weight, if any, such inference is to be given.”
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.