Inthavong v. Lamarque’s Empirical Analysis
420 F.3d 1055 · 2005
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably Frantz v. Hazey (2008), Ruelas v. Wolfenbarger (2009)
15 federal appellate · 1 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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Arizona v. Fulminante · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade · Mitchell Warden v. Esparza
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 622 , 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1714 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 , 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1253 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)); Inthavong, 420 F.3d at 1059 . 4 . Chapman's”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Federal habeas claims must be dismissed where state courts have decided the claim on state procedural grounds.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Davis v. Johnson
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.