Perry v. Mulligan’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · Griffin v. California · Fay v. Noia · Berger v. United States · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““¶ 5.8(c) The prosecutor should not use arguments calculated to inflame the passions or prejudice of the jury. “¶ 5.8(d) The prosecutor should refrain from argument which would divert the jury from its duty to decide the case on the evidence, by injecting issues broader than the guilt or innocence of the accused under the prevailing law, or by making predictions of the consequences of the jury’s verdict.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Yes, I find that objectionable and I ask that it be stricken.”
1 later decision 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.