Paradis v. Arave’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

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

1. “Insofar as the judge’s presiding over the prior trials of Cowden’s codefendants may have resulted in his learning about facts damaging to Cowden, the situation is not much different from when a presiding judge learns about evidence, later excluded, damaging to a defendant at a voir-dire or bench conference in the same proceeding. While judges attempt to shield themselves from needless exposure to matters outside the record, they are necessarily exposed to them in the course of ruling on the admission of evidence; and the judicial system could not function if judges could deal but once in their lifetime with a given defendant, or had to withdraw from a case whenever they had presided in a related or companion case or in a separate trial in the same case. The mere fact, therefore, that a judge has already presided over the separate jury trials of codefen-dants does not, in our view, constitute reasonable grounds for questioning his impartiality in a subsequent jury trial involving a remaining codefendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Morrison

2. “the requisite culpability finding may be made at any point in state proceedings and is thereafter entitled to a presumption of correctness pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Burks v. Borg

3. “), and Paradis v. Arave, 667 F.Supp. 1361 (D.Idaho 1987) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Paradis v. Arave