John Merlo v. Dan L. Bolden’s Empirical Analysis
801 F.2d 252 · 1986
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably Wells v. Maass (1994), Davis v. United States (1989)
20 federal appellate · 2 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 Chapman v. State of California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Sandstrom v. Montana · Tumey v. State of Ohio
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“after examination of the record in its entirety ... that the jury would have found it unnecessary to rely on the presumption,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In this case ... the district court found that “respondent concedes that the prosecutor did not expressly raise the procedural default issue in his responsive brief before the Michigan Court of Appeals or the Michigan Supreme Court.” Accordingly, the district court properly concluded that since procedural default was not argued in the state courts, the state courts denied relief based on the merits of [the petitioner’s] claims. The state, by failing to assert procedural default, waived the right to assert it as an independent ground to support [the petitioner’s] conviction. We discern no error in the district court’s analysis.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Engle, 707 F.2d at 246; see also Conway, 698 F.2d at 285. Rather, we will apply the traditional Chapman harmless error analysis to determine whether the record, examined in its entirety, establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The specific inquiry in a Sandstrom case will be”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Burton v. Foltz
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.