Fahy v. Connecticut’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
953 federal appellate · 94 district · 1,720 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3,314 later decisions (83 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably Chapman v. State of California (1967), United States v. Bagley (1985)
953 federal appellate · 94 district · 1,720 state decisions — followed in 48 states
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 Wong Sun v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Ker v. State of California · Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States · Nardone v. United States
Cited together with Chapman v. State of California · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Harrington v. California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Kotteakos 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 3,314 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.”
149 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“essence of a provision forbidding the acquisition of evidence in a certain way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the Court but that it shall not be used at all.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is obvious that there is no necessary connection between the fact that evidence was unconstitutionally seized and the degree of harm caused by its admission. The question of harmless error turns not on the reasons for inadmissibility but on the effect on the evidence in the context of a particular case. Erroneously admitted ‘constitutional’ evidence may often be more prejudicial than erroneously admitted ‘unconstitutional’ evidence.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.