Norris v. Risley’s Empirical Analysis
918 F.2d 828 · 1990
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Carey v. Musladin (2006), State v. Bible (1993)
36 federal appellate · 37 state decisions — followed in 21 states
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 Irvin v. Dowd · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Illinois v. Allen · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“so inherently prejudicial as to pose an unacceptable threat to [the] right to a fair trial.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an unacceptable risk [of] impermissible factors coming into play.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Musladin v. Lamarque · In Re Woods“Thus, though far more subtle than a direct accusation, the buttons’ message was all the more dangerous precisely because it was not a formal accusation. Unlike the state’s direct evidence, which could have been refuted by any manner of contrary testimony to be judged ultimately on the basis of each declarant’s credibility, the buttons’ informal accusation was not susceptible to traditional methods of refutation. Instead, the accusation stood unchallenged, lending credibility and weight to the state’s case without being subject to the constitutional protections to which such evidence is ordinarily subjected.”
2 later decisions 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.