Johnson v. Lamas’s Empirical Analysis
850 F.3d 119 · 2017
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“as to whether the error at trial had a substantial and injurious effect or influence. See Johnson v. Lamas , 850 F.3d 119 , 133 (3d Cir. 2017). In other words,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]here must be more than a 'reasonable probability' that the error was harmful.”
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.