Doucette v. Vose’s Empirical Analysis
842 F.2d 538 · 1988
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2005 · most notably United States v. Natanel (1991), Gunter v. Maloney (2002)
14 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Strickland v. Washington · Wainwright v. Sykes · United States v. Frady · Sandstrom v. Montana · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“reasonably clear that its reasons for affirming a conviction rest upon its view of federal law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Against this backdrop, it is disingenuous to argue that the SJC’s “harmless ... beyond a reasonable doubt” finding was intended to incorporate the federal harmless error standard.... We have repeatedly held, and today reaffirm, that SJC review under the discretionary state miscarriage of justice standard will not suffice, in and of itself, to bypass the Commonwealth’s contemporaneous objection rule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e normally find a waiver of this state ground where the state courts, after reviewing a conviction, affirm ... on the basis of their own analysis of federal law.”
1 later decision 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.