Porter v. Zook’s Empirical Analysis
803 F.3d 694 · 2015
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Smith v. Phillips · McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood · Porter v. Com. · Fitzgerald v. Greene
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] juror's failure to elaborate on a response that is factually correct but less than comprehensive may not meet th[e] standard [of dishonesty] - 86 - where no follow-up question is asked.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“has resolved all claims as to all parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“). Even assuming otherwise, the court explained, Porter still could not show that he was prejudiced because he could not show that a correct answer would have given rise to a valid basis to challenge Treakle for cause. Id. at -12. The district court did not specifically address any claim for actual bias. On Porter's prior appeal, we concluded that the district court failed to address Porter's actual bias claim and that, "[b]ecause the district court did not resolve [the actual bias] claim, its decision was not a final order over which we have jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Porter v. Zook
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.