Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 767 SW2D 759 - Powell v. State

Powell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 2008
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2008

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

50198919902000decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Barker v. Wingo · Estelle v. Smith · Scharffe v. Perkins · Satterwhite v. Texas

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

  1. “it is most unlikely that the Supreme Court would remand this cause for us to reconsider a superfluous harmless error analysis, albeit it was utterly flawed[,] [u]nless the Supreme Court believed 'there was error in admitting the testimony of Drs. Coon[s] and Parker.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “that Satterwhite 'solely concerned harmless error,' . . . is to disregard much in Part II of that opinion finding a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “initial determination of no Smith error, as well as the remaining holdings of [the] original opinion, . . . remain[ed] undisturbed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.