Windham v. Merkle’s Empirical Analysis
163 F.3d 1092 · 1998
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Juan v. Allen III (2005), Fisher v. Texas (1999)
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Batson v. Kentucky · Coleman v. Thompson · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Brecht v. Abrahamson
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“rendered the trial so fundamentally unfair as to violate due process.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“there are no permissible inferences the jury may draw”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Leavitt v. Arave · Leavitt v. Arave“We review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether there is substantial evidence — evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value — such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We presume the existence of every fact favorable to the judgment that the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [¶] [Petitioner] was convicted of two counts of violating section 314, subdivision 1: “Every person who willfully and lewdly, either: [¶] 1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby; ...” First, he argues the county jail is not a public place. This is immaterial, because the second prong of the first subdivision was satisfied, since there were jail personnel present to be offended or annoyed by his conduct.”
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.