Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 F.3d 986 - Pyles v. Johnson

Pyles v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

136 F.3d 986 · 1998

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Dennis Thurl Dowthitt v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (2000), Nevers v. Killinger (1999)

17 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

240199820002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Bruton v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · United States v. Bagley

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

  1. “[a] juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror, only after some outside evidence of that act or event has been presented.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[E]vidence ismaterial only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.