Bonner v. Holt’s Empirical Analysis
26 F.3d 1081 · 1994
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Irvin v. Dowd · United States v. Lane
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether the error 'had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the [court's] verdict,'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Harmless error is a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Singletary
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.