Ramirez v. Hatcher’s Empirical Analysis
136 F.3d 1209 · 1998
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably Leavitt v. Arave (2004), Middleton v. State (1998)
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Teague v. Lane · Arizona v. Fulminante · Estelle v. McGuire · Holland v. United States
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[1] Infringement of the rule must seriously diminish the likelihood of obtaining an accurate conviction, and [2] the rule must alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Leavitt v. Arave · Leavitt v. Arave“[t]he Supreme Court's unanimous decision in [ Sullivan ] leaves no doubt that the Cage rule meets this standard”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Leavitt v. Arave · Leavitt v. Arave“"Reasonable doubt” is such a doubt as would cause a reasonable and prudent person, in one of the graver and more important transactions of life, to pause and hesitate before taking the represented facts as true and relying and acting thereon. It is such a doubt as will not permit you, after full, fair, and impartial consideration of all the evidence, to have an abid- tag conviction, to a moral certainty, of the guilt of the accused. At the same time, absolute or mathematical certainty is not required. You may be convinced of the truth of a fact beyond a reasonable doubt and yet be fully aware that possibly you may be mistaken. You may find ansaccused guilty upon the strong probabilities of the case, provided such probabilities are strong enough to exclude any doubt of his guilt that is reasonable. A reasonable doubt is an actual and substantial doubt reasonably arising from the evidence, from the facts or circumstances shown by the evidence, or from the lack of evidence on the part of the State, as distinguished from a doubt arising from mere possibility, from bare imagination, or from fanciful conjecture.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Wilson v. State
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.