Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 F.3d 1133 - Tague v. Richards

Tague v. Richards’s Empirical Analysis

3 F.3d 1133 · 1993

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
6
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 1 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably State v. Rolon (2001), Tyson v. Trigg (1995)

21 federal appellate · 1 district · 19 state decisions

400199320002010decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Brecht v. Abrahamson

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

  1. “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Furthermore, the right to confront witnesses 'may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.'”
    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.