Mallory v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Harris v. State (1989), Madden v. State (1990)
59 state decisions
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 Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · Bruton v. United States · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Harrington 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the appellate record in a criminal case reveals error in the proceedings below, the appellate court shall reverse the judgment under review, unless the appellate court determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the error made no contribution to the conviction or to the punishment.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Fjirst, the appellate court must find from the record that an error exists. Second, if an error is discovered the appellate court is at that point obligated to reverse the judgment. Third, the necessity of reversing the judgment is obviat-ed only if “the appellate court determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the error made no contribution to the conviction or to the punishment.” In other words, if the appellate court cannot make that determination beyond a reasonable doubt it is required to reverse the judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Olivarez v. State“[t]here is little, if any, difference between a rule formulated, as in Napue , in terms of ‘whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction,’ and a rule ‘requiring the beneficiary of a constitutional error to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Adams
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.