Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 729 F.2d 1078 - Webster v. Rees

Webster v. Rees’s Empirical Analysis

729 F.2d 1078 · 1984

Citation profile

69
cited by 69 later decisions
January 2010
most recently cited

59 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently January 2010 · most notably Olsen v. McFaul (1988), United States v. Jordan (1987)

59 federal appellate ·

3801984199020002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Berger v. United States · McClain v. United States · United States v. Leon · United States v. Bess · Angel v. Overberg

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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In every case, we consider the degree to which the remarks complained of have a tendency to mislead the jury and to prejudice the accused; whether they were isolated or extensive; whether they were deliberately or accidently placed before the jury, and the strength of the competent proofs introduced to establish the guilt of the accused.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[m]ore commonly, however, the complained-of conduct will not rise to reversible error, notably if it is not flagrant, where proof of guilt is overwhelming, where counsel does not object and/or where the trial judge ... admonishes the jury.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “prosecuting attorney seriously exceeded the bounds of permissible argument by repeatedly calling the [defendant] a liar instead of just reviewing the evidence which detailed the inconsistencies in his statements ...”
    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.