O'Bryan v. Estelle’s Empirical Analysis
691 F.2d 706 · 1982
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Wainwright v. Witt (1985), Barefoot v. Estelle (1983)
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Wainwright v. Sykes · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Jurek v. Texas
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the movant has made a showing of likelihood of success on the merits, (2) whether the movant has made a showing of irreparable injury if the stay is not granted, (3) whether the granting of the stay would substantially harm the other parties, and (4) whether the granting of the stay would serve the public interest.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“while the movant need not always show a probability of success on the merits, he must present a substantial case on the merits when a serious legal question is involved and show that the balance of the equities [i.e. the other three factors] weighs heavily in the favor of granting the stay.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“THE COURT: Well, the law requires that we have to have a definite answer. JUROR PFEFFER: I understand, right. THE COURT: Because the law does allow people to be excused because of certain beliefs that could be prejudicial or biased for one side or the other, and both sides just want to know if you can keep an open mind, consider the entire full range of punishment, whatever that may be, and under the proper set of circumstances, if they do exist and you feel they exist, that you could return that verdict. And that’s in essence what they’re asking. JUROR PFEFFER: Indirectly, I guess I would have to say no. THE COURT: You could not? JUROR PFEFFER: I would have to say no then, to give you a yes or no answer. THE COURT: Then, am I to believe by virtue of that answer that regardless of what the facts would reveal, regardless of how horrible the circumstances may be, that you would automatically vote against the imposition of the death penalty? JUROR PFEFFER: As I say, I don’t know. THE COURT: Well, that’s the question I have to have a yes or no to. JUROR PFEFFER: Right. THE COURT: And you’re the only human being alive who knows, Mr. Pfeffer. JUROR PFEFFER: Right, I understand. If I have to make a choice between yes and no, I would say that I couldnt make the judgment.”
2 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.