Bibbins v. Dalsheim’s Empirical Analysis
21 F.3d 13 · 1994
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably United States v. Williams-Davis (1996), Gall v. Parker (2000)
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 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 Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Estelle v. McGuire · Irvin v. Dowd · Remmer 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“part of the fund of ordinary experience that jurors may bring to the jury room and may rely upon ... in the same way that another juror may know that Times Square is busy all night or that there are doormen along stretches of Park Avenue”); Gereau, 523 F.2d at 151 (verdict not invalid”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘[w]here an extraneous influence [on the jury] is shown, the [reviewing federal] court must apply an objective test, assessing for itself the likelihood that the influence would affect a typical juror.’ ” Id. (quoting Miller v. United States, 403 F.2d 77 , 83 n. 11 (2d Cir.1968)). Based on this precedent, the Second Circuit held that a juror's affidavit was”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an independent determination of whether knowledge of the extra-record information would have a substantial and injurious impact on the verdict of a reasonable jury”
2 later decisions 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.