Bryant v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Witherspoon v. Illinois · United States v. Young · United States v. Frady · Wainwright v. Witt
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“` Patton, 104 S.Ct. at 2892 (footnote omitted). "`The reasons set out above are also the reasons this court gives great weight to a trial court's decision on challenges for cause. "`In addressing whether there was fair support in the record for the trial court's denial of the challenges for cause in Patton , the Supreme Court stated: "`”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In Thomas v. State, 539 So.2d 375 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), we said the following, relevant to Bryant's claim concerning prospective juror R.C.:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Because no single instance of alleged error constituted reversible error, we will not consider the cumulative effect to be any greater.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.