Burrus v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
808 F.2d 578 · 1986
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently November 2000 · most notably United States v. Hooks (1988), Cole v. Young (1987)
18 federal appellate · 1 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chambers v. Mississippi · Washington v. Texas · Smith v. Phillips · Juidice v. Vail · Thornton v. Wahl
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““‘enables a trial judge to determine whether the evidence would be available for any purpose, and ensures that the record will be sufficiently detailed to permit appraisal by an appellate court of the scope and effect of the ruling, so that it can determine whether the trial court committed reversible error in excluding the evidence.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““[wjhile that may suffice to preserve the point for review, much more is required if the offeror intends to show that there was, in fact, error. For example, if the admissibility of the evidence turns on the existence or non-existence of a preliminary fact, the offeror must either already have proved the existence of the fact or it must be included in his offer.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Haas v. Abrahamson““If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jones v. Hamelman
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.