Henderson v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis
118 F.3d 1283 · 1997
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Matter of Pirtle (1998), Carter v. Hopkins (1998)
11 federal appellate · 4 district · 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 Strickland v. Washington · Lindh v. Murphy · Colorado v. Connelly · Miller v. Fenton · Hobbs v. Al Lockhart
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On habeas review, evidentiary errors are only relevant to the extent that the presentation or admission of particular proof infringed on "a specific constitutional protection or was so prejudicial as to deny due process." Hobbs v. Lockhart, 791 F.2d 125, 127 (8th Cir.1986) (quotation omitted). Only evidentiary errors that are so grossly prejudicial that they fatally infect the entire trial, preventing it from being fundamentally fair, will justify habeas corpus relief. Rainer v. Department of Corrections, 914 F.2d 1067, 1072 (8th Cir.1990). To make this determination, we "review the totality of the facts in the case and analyze the fairness of the particular trial under consideration." Hobbs, 791 F.2d at 128 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“second-guess strategic decisions or exploit the benefits of hindsight.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Osborne v. Purkett
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.