Thomas v. Hubbard’s Empirical Analysis
273 F.3d 1164 · 2001
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Chambers v. Mississippi · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Washington v. Texas
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Id. at 1178(internal quotations omitted) (citing United States v. Frederick, 78 F.3d 1370 , 1381 (9th Cir.1996)); see also Whelchel v. Washington, 232 F.3d 1197 , 1212 (9th Cir.2000) (noting that cumulative error applies on habeas review); Matlock v. Rose, 731 F.2d 1236 , 1244 (6th Cir.1984) (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]ven if the statements [we]re classified as non-hearsay, they are sufficiently prejudicial that the jury would be unable to consider them only for limited purposes and would consider them for their truth in violation of the Confrontation Clause”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“leaves us with a `firm conviction' that one answer, the one rejected by the [state] court[s], was correct and the other, the application of the federal law that the [state] court[s] adopted, was erroneous—in other words that clear error occurred.”
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.