Walberg v. Israel’s Empirical Analysis
766 F.2d 1071 · 1985
Citation profile
75 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably State v. Fritz (1987), United States v. Kerley (1988)
75 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 144 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Cuyler v. Sullivan · United States v. Cronic · Holloway v. Arkansas
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the judge who is so hostile to a lawyer as to doom the client to defeat, deprives the client of the right to an impartial tribunal.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A litigant is denied the fundamental fairness to which he is constitutionally entitled if the judge of his case is unfairly biased against him. However, a litigant is not denied due process by whether the “appearance” of partiality or by circumstances which might lead one to speculate as to a judge’s impartiality. A litigant is denied due process if he is in fact treated unfairly.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Although most cases of bias by trial judges have involved the question whether the judge's bias was likely to influence the jury, that is not an essential element. Even when the biased judge neither is the trier of fact nor is shown to have conveyed his bias to the jury that is the trier of fact, there can be a violation of due process which requires a reversal of the conviction. [...] It is also true that the judge's prejudice in this case was directed toward the lawyer rather than the client. But the judge who is so hostile to a lawyer as to doom the client to defeat deprives the client of the right to an impartial tribunal.”
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.