Ortiz v. Yates’s Empirical Analysis
704 F.3d 1026 · 2012
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Chambers v. Mississippi
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jordan v. Diaz“unreasonable, arbitrary, or disproportionate in light of any countervailing interests justifying preclusion, such as waste of time, confusion, and prejudice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jordan v. Diaz“such that no fairminded jurist could disagree that the cross-examination could have influenced the jury's assessment of her.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jordan v. Diaz
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.