Ayala v. Speckard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The first prong of the Waller test requires that before a courtroom be closed to the public, the party seeking the closure must present evidence of an ‘overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced.’ Id. Such a closure may not, however, be predicated upon the mere possibility that an interest will be prejudiced, see United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir.1995); rather, the Supreme Court has made clear that there must be a ‘substantial probability’ that the interest in question will be prejudiced by open testimony, see Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court [of California), 478 U.S. 1, 14 , 106 S.Ct. 2735 , 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (“Press-Enterprise II”). Moreover, the burden is upon the party seeking closure to establish the existence of a substantial probability of prejudice. See Doe, 63 F.3d at 130 .” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 94.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Washington · 142 Ohio App. 3d 268 - State v. Washington

2. “An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim - (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Baylor v. Estelle

3. “between the undercover's testimony in a particular case and such danger. Id. Ayala I makes clear that “the mere possibility that someone with the ability and inclination to injure [the undercover] will be present in the courtroom during his brief testimony”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 14 F. Supp. 2d 321 - Mason v. Schriver