Conway v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
698 F.2d 282 · 1983
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Sandstrom v. Montana · Harrington v. California · Rideout 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.
“Retroactive application of Sandstrom has been recognized in this Circuit since the instructional error would normally affect a defendant's right to a fair trial and impact upon the ultimate issue of innocence or guilt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“the corrupting effect of a Sandstrom instruction is to a great extent a function of the defense, if any, interposed at trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Hagler v. Callahan“Sandstrom instruction cannot be adjudged by even the most fertile imagination to have contributed to the convictions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Martin v. Foltz
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.