Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 137 F.3d 630 - Mach v. Stewart

Mach v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis

137 F.3d 630 · 1997

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
10
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably State v. Yarbrough (2002), State v. Sanders (2001)

14 federal appellate · 23 state decisions — followed in 10 states

2601997200020102020decided

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

  1. “€™s expert-like statements, the certainty with which they were made, the years of experience that led to them, the number of times they were repeated, and the nature of the case,”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “during voir dire to an intrinsically prejudicial statement [which] resulted in the swearing in of a tainted jury”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(a). .. had a certain amount of expertise in this area (she had taken child psychology courses and worked with psychologists and psychiatrists; she worked with children as a social worker for the state for at least three years); and (b) [made] four separate statements that she had never been involved in a case in which a child accused an adult of sexual abuse where that child’s statements had not been borne out.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.