O'CONNOR v. Leapley’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2013
15 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 Townsend v. Sain · Hullum v. United States · Carroll v. President & Commissioners of Princess Anne · Roger R. Haller v. Allan, L. Robbins, Warden of the Maine State Prison · United States v. Hackett
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f an ex parte communication is invited or initiated by the judge, no prejudice needs to be shown ... Prejudice is implicit in the judge’s invitation or initiation of an improper ex parte communication.” (citing State v. Barker, 227 Neb. 842 , 420 N.W.2d 695, 699 (1988)). Id. We also noted,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Habeas corpus can be used only to review (1) whether the court had jurisdiction of the crime and the person of the defendant; (2) whether the sentence was authorized by law; and (3) in certain cases whether an incarcerated defendant has been deprived of basic constitutional rights.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If an ex parte communication is invited or initiated by the judge, no prejudice needs to be shown. However, where an ex parte communication is not invited or initiated by the judge, reversible error occurs only if the adverse party is prejudiced by an inability to rebut the facts communicated and if improper influence appears with reasonable certainty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Thorsby
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.