Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 33 F.3d 1037 - Henry v. Estelle

Henry v. Estelle’s Empirical Analysis

33 F.3d 1037 · 1993

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
February 2021
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2021 · most notably Duncan v. Henry (1995), 26 Cal. 4th 81 - People v. Catlin (2001)

18 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

2201993200020102020decided

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 · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Teague v. Lane

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

  1. “'substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “his federal claim to the state courts because”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““In his direct appeal in state court, Henry did not label his claim a federal due process violation; he argued rather that Hackett’s testimony was erroneously admitted because irrelevant and inflammatory, and that its admission resulted in a ‘miscarriage of justice’ under the California Constitution. However, to state a federal due process claim it is not necessary to invoke ‘the talis-manie phrase “due process of law”’ or cite ‘book and verse on the federal constitution’ . . . .” Id., at 1040 (citations omitted).”
    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.