Nethery v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis
993 F.2d 1154 · 1993
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Drinkard v. Johnson (1996), Alberto Valdez v. Janie Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division - (2001)
26 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Teague v. Lane · Arizona v. Fulminante
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it is necessary to examine in each case whether a paper hearing is appropriate to the resolution of the factual dispute underlying the petitioner's claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result.” Third, he contends that the jury might have believed that the defendant's non-triggerman actions were deliberate. All three of these arguments are rephrasings of Jacobs's basic thesis: that the two special issues did not allow the jury to take into account the possibility that a co-conspirator physically caused the death of the victim. Jacobs also argues that it was error for the state trial court not to define the word”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Jacobs v. Scott“presumption of correctness [under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)], even for the purely historical fact as to whether a [competency] hearing occurred, . . . does not apply when 'some reason to doubt the adequacy or the accuracy of the fact-finding proceeding' exists”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.