Grayton v. Ercole’s Empirical Analysis
691 F.3d 165 · 2012
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Olano · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Williams v. Taylor · Crawford v. Washington · Faretta v. California
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But that right is not unqualified, and it does not exist when the defendant's '”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a [People v.] Sandoval [ 34 N.Y.2d 371 , 357 N.Y.S.2d 849 , 314 N.E.2d 413 (1974)] hearing is held, upon a defendant's request, to determine the extent to which he will be subject to impeachment by cross-examination about prior bad acts if he testifies.” Grayton v. Ercole, 691 F.3d 165 , 173 (2d Cir.2012) (quotation marks omitted). 2 . Ramos argues on appeal that he was hoping to”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ramos v. Racette“at all stages of the proceedings where fundamental fairness might be thwarted by [his] absence.”
1 later decision 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.