Quirama v. Michele’s Empirical Analysis
983 F.2d 12 · 1993
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably Fama v. Commissioner of Correctional Services (2000), David Aparicio v. Christopher Artuz (2001)
15 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Coleman v. Thompson · Murray v. Carrier · Harris v. Reed · Benjamin v. United States · Lewis v. Adamson
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the jury, drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence, may fairly and logically have concluded that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In making this determination, [the court] must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and construe all permissible inferences in its favor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“stated that Harris did not apply to affirmances without opinion unless there is 'good reason to question whether there is an independent and adequate state ground for the decision.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“New York permits review of the merits of claims not raised in the trial court only sparingly and it is thus reasonable to presume that silence in the face of arguments asserting a procedural bar indicated that the affirmance was on state procedural grounds.”
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.