Mach v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
129 F.3d 495 · 1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brecht v. Abrahamson · Arizona v. Fulminante · Irvin v. Dowd · Lindh v. Murphy · Smith v. Phillips
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“THE COURT: ... Are any of you—are any of you in psychology or have you ever been in psychology? I mean psychologist or clinical psychologist or psychiatrist? Anybody here have any background in psychology? MS. BODKIN: I’ve taken psychology courses and worked extensively with psychologists and psychiatrists. THE COURT: Have you had any courses in child psychology? MS. BODKIN: Yes. THE COURT: Thank you, Miss Bodkin.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mach v. Stewart
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.