Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 934 F.2d 856 - Hunter v. Clark

Hunter v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

934 F.2d 856 · 1991

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
5
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably 234 Ill. 2d 173 - People v. Glasper (2009), Jones v. Page (1996)

16 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

200199120002010decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Teague v. Lane · Griffin v. California · Arizona v. Fulminante

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

  1. ““We recognize that ‘there can be no such thing as an error free, perfect trial, and that the Constitution does not guarantee such a trial____ Since Chapman, the Court has consistently made clear that it is the duty of a reviewing court to consider the trial record as a whole and to ignore errors that are harmless, including most constitutional violations.’ United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 , 508-09, 103 S.Ct. 1974 , 1980, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). While [the petitioner’s] trial was not perfect, and we might add, very few are, any error was harmless in view of the overpowering evidence of his guilt.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[gliven the overwhelming weight of the evidence against Hunter, the failure to give Hunter's requested 'no adverse inference' instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, thus no significant value [was] at stake.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.