Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 986 F.2d 1506 - Levine v. Torvik

Levine v. Torvik’s Empirical Analysis

986 F.2d 1506 · 1993

Citation profile

121
cited by 121 later decisions
8
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

50 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 121 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Francis S. v. Stone (2000), McQueen v. Scroggy (1996)

50 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions

5601993200020102020decided

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. § 2251 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Younger v. Harris · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier

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

  1. “A state cannot be said to have a federal due process obligation to follow all of its procedures; such a system would result in the constitutionalizing of every state rule, and would not be administrable.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A petitioner 'fairly presents' his claim to the state courts by citing a provision of the Constitution, federal decisions using constitutional analysis, or state decisions employing constitutional analysis in similar fact patterns.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[The] court should review the evidence presented to the state court ... to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found by a preponderance of the evidence that [the insanity acquittee] was mentally ill and dangerous.”
    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.