Fryar v. Bissonnette’s Empirical Analysis
318 F.3d 339 · 2003
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brecht v. Abrahamson · Chambers v. Mississippi · California v. Roy · Kansas v. Colorado · Fortini v. Murphy
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here, the federal claim was never addressed by the state courts. All of the cases that have touched upon this problem (none is directly on point) assume that [AEDPA] applies only when the state court decided the federal issue. After all, AEDPA imposes a requirement of deference to state court decisions, but we can hardly defer to the state court on an issue that the state court did not address.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a federal habeas court is bound to uphold a state court judgment, notwithstanding trial-type federal constitutional error, so long as that error did not have a 'substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.'”
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.