Robertson v. Cain’s Empirical Analysis
324 F.3d 297 · 2003
Citation profile
22 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Schaetzle v. Cockrell (2003), Cotton v. Cockrell (2003)
22 federal appellate ·
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. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"On direct appeal, when faced with a constitutional violation, a court must reverse the judgment of the court below unless the constitutional error is 'harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 24, 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). However, in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 , 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), the Supreme Court articulated a 'less onerous' standard for assessing the impact of a state court's constitutional error on collateral review. Under Brecht, a federal court may grant habeas relief on account of constitutional error only if it determines that the constitutional error had a 'substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.’ See id. at 623 , 507 U.S. 619 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 , 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)). Under this standard, however, the petitioner should prevail whenever the record is 'so evenly balanced that a conscientious judge is in grave doubt as to the harmlessness of the error.' O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 , 436, 115 S.Ct. 992 , 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995). As this court has explained, 'if our minds are "in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness” under the Brecht standard, of the error, then we must conclude that it was harmful.’ Woods v. Johnson, 75 F.3d 1017 , 1026-27 (5th Cir.1996) (quoting O'Neal, 513 U.S. at 435 , 115 S.Ct. 992 , 130 L.Ed.2d 947 ).” Robertson v. Cain, 324 F.3d ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Horn v. Quarterman“as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Burgess v. Dretke
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.