Clemmons v. Sowders’s Empirical Analysis
34 F.3d 352 · 1994
Citation profile
76 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 157 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably United States v. Frost (1997), Norris v. Schotten (1998)
76 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brecht v. Abrahamson · Estelle v. McGuire · Bibby v. United States · Santoni v. United States · Baskett v. United States
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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Habeas review does not encompass state court rulings on the admission of evidence unless there is a constitutional violation. Fuson v. Jago, 773 F.2d 55, 59 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1020 , 106 S.Ct. 3334 , 92 L.Ed.2d 739 (1986). We must evaluate whether the error ‘had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’ Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. at 637-38, 113 S.Ct. at 1722. The petitioner must establish ‘actual prejudice’ to warrant habeas relief. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. at 637-38, 113 S.Ct. at 1722.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Helton v. Turner · Ege v. Yukins“substantial and injurious effect or influence”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[p]ursuant to the 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d) presumption of correctness, we give complete deference to district and state court findings supported by the evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.