Baker v. Leapley’s Empirical Analysis
965 F.2d 657 · 1992
Citation profile
15 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 17 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United Families of America v. Kendrick · Andrijevic v. Kelleran · Conway v. Statesman Mortgage Co. · Scott Timothy Berrisford v. Frank W. Wood, Warden · State v. Baker
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““federal habeas relief from a state conviction is not available because of improper jury instructions unless the error constitutes a fundamental defect that resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice or so infected the entire trial as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Moreover, “[a] state court’s interpretation of state law is binding upon a federal court in a habeas proceeding.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a fundamental defect resulting in a complete miscarriage of justice,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Closs v. Leapley
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.