Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 978 F.2d 1502 - Campbell v. Blodgett

Campbell v. Blodgett’s Empirical Analysis

978 F.3d 1502 · 1992

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
3
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Campbell v. Wood (1994), State v. Kleypas (2001)

16 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

140199220002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Johnson v. Zerbst · Faretta v. California · Townsend v. Sain · Gregg v. Georgia

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

  1. “that counsel cannot waive defendant's right to be present without the knowledge or consent of the defendant.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “if (1) the same ground presented in the subsequent application was determined adversely to the applicant on the prior application, (2) the prior determination was on the merits, and (3) the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits of the subsequent application.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “upon showing an intervening change in the law or some other justification for having failed to raise a crucial point or argument in the prior [motion].”
    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.