Merolillo v. Yates’s Empirical Analysis
663 F.3d 444 · 2011
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2101 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · Crawford v. Washington · Kotteakos v. United States
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f 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.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ayala v. Wong · Murdaugh v. Ryan“'we need not conduct an analysis under AEDPÁ of whether the state court's harmlessness determination on direct review ... was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.’ ” Merolillo, 663 F.3d at 455 (quoting Pulido v. Chrones, 629 F.3d 1007 , 1012 (9th Cir.2010)). Instead,”
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.