O'NEAL v. McAninch’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
1,128 federal appellate · 55 district · 288 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,584 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Fry v. Pliler (2007), Schaffer Ex Rel. Schaffer v. Weast (2005)
1,128 federal appellate · 55 district · 288 state decisions — followed in 22 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
reviewedO'Neal v. Morris (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2111 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (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 · United States v. Olano · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson
Cited together with Brecht v. Abrahamson · Kotteakos v. United States · Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · Strickland v. Washington
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 2,584 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.”
50 later decisions quote this exact passage“in the judge's mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.”
45 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If, when all is said and done, the [court’s] conviction is sure that the error did not influence the jury, or had but very slight effect, the verdict and the judgment should stand.... But if one cannot say, with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error, it is impossible to conclude that substantial rights were not affected. The inquiry cannot be merely whether there was enough to support the result, apart from the phase affected by the error. It is rather, even so, whether the error itself had substantial influence. If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.”
37 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hill v. Turpin · Killian v. Poole
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.