Morris v. Mathews’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
76 federal appellate · 4 district · 115 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 262 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2020 · most notably United States v. Halper (1989), Rutledge v. United States (1996)
76 federal appellate · 4 district · 115 state decisions — followed in 24 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Bagley · Butner v. United States · Ashe v. Swenson
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 262 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“but for the improper inclusion of the [erroneous] charge, the result of the proceeding probably would have been different”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The correct inquiry is whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors, all readily accessible to reviewing courts. These factors include the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Id.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“reduced to a conviction for a lesser included offense which is not jeopardy barred,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.