Campbell v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis
408 F.3d 1166 · 2005
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably 36 Cal. 4th 510 - People v. Davis (2005), Juan v. Allen III (2005)
30 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
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 Glasser v. United States · Williams v. Taylor · Faretta v. California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Supreme Court has never held that the exclusion of a defendant from a critical stage of his criminal proceedings constitutes a structural error. To the contrary, in [Rushen, 464 U.S. at 117 , 104 S.Ct. 453 ], the Court determined that the fact that the defendant was denied the right to be present during an ex parte communication between the judge and a juror was a trial error that was subject to harmless error analysis.”); Bordallo, 857 F.2d at 522-23 (holding that the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Obtaining reversal for violation of such a right does not require a showing of prejudice to the defense, since the right reflects constitutional protection of the defendant’s free choice independent of concern for the objective fairness of the proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Bradley v. Henry
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.