Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 982 F.2d 14 - Siegfriedt v. Fair

Siegfriedt v. Fair’s Empirical Analysis

982 F.2d 14 · 1992

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
2
states following
August 2014
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently August 2014

14 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

100199220002010decided

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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Ohio v. Roberts · Pointer v. Texas · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · California v. Green · Bourjaily 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The long and short of it is that the Smith standard has a core purpose: to prevent a criminal conviction based on the testimony of a witness who remains a mere shadow, in the defendant’s mind____ Against this backdrop, it is readily apparent that all pseudonyms are not equal in the eyes of the Confrontation Clause. Rather, courts must gauge the pull of Smith in any given case by the degree to which its rationale applies. Sometimes, as in Smith itself, a witness’s use of a fictitious name will transform him into a wraith and thereby thwart the efficacy of cross-examination. Other times, the use of a fictitious name will be no more than a mere curiosity, possessing no constitutional significance.”
    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.