Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 281 F.3d 1032 - Chia v. Cambra

Chia v. Cambra’s Empirical Analysis

281 F.3d 1032 · 2002

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
March 2004
most recently cited

5 federal appellate ·

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Chambers v. Mississippi · Estelle v. McGuire · Williamson v. United States · United States v. Hatter

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

  1. “Evidence of a statement by a declarant having sufficient knowledge of the subject is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness and the statement, when made, was so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far subjected him to the risk of civil or criminal liability, or so far tended to render invalid a claim by him against another or created such a risk of making him an object of hatred, ridicule, or social disgrace in the community, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The activity of Mr. Chia, if taken by itself, is subject to two reasonable interpretations: one, that he was simply trying to help out the buddy and the other, of course, knowing full well what his buddy was doing, he was there to assist and to facilitate and to encourage and aid and abet and everything else.”
    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.