Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 336 F.3d 478 - Zuern v. Tate

Zuern v. Tate’s Empirical Analysis

336 F.3d 478 · 2003

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
1
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably United States v. Martinez (2005), United States v. Caver (2006)

24 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

310200320102020decided

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

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Bagley · Kyles v. Whitley · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Herrera v. Collins

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

  1. “(1) whether the remark was unsolicited, (2) whether the government's line of questioning was reasonable, (3) whether the limiting instruction was immediate, clear, and forceful, (4) whether any bad faith was evidenced by the government, and (5) whether the remark was only a small part of the evidence against the defendant.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “must convince us that “there is a reasonable probability” that the result of the trial would have been different if the suppressed documents had been disclosed to the defense. As we stressed in Kyles, “The adjective is important: The question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In reviewing claims of juror bias in the habeas context, we bear in mind that: (1) the trial court must hold a hearing when the defendant alleges unauthorized contact with a juror; (2) no presumption of prejudice arises from the unauthorized contact; (3) the defendant has the burden of proving actual juror bias; and (4) juror testimony at the Remmer hearing is not inherently suspect.”
    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.