Herrera v. Lemaster’s Empirical Analysis
301 F.3d 1192 · 2002
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Leon · Kotteakos v. United States · 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even if our precedent were to establish squarely that the prosecution[ ] ... violated Penry’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, that error would justify overturning Penry’s sentence [on federal habeas review] only if Penry could establish that the error 'had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Aleman v. Sternes“a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Aleman v. Sternes
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.