Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 991 F.2d 1218 - Pemberton v. Collins

Pemberton v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis

991 F.2d 1218 · 1993

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2014 · most notably Nobles v. Johnson (1997), West v. Johnson (1996)

9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

290199320002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'trial type error' will serve as a basis for habeas relief only if it 'had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A] federal habeas court has nothing whatsoever to do with reviewing a state court ruling on the admissibility of evidence under state law. State evidentiary law simply has no affect on [a court’s] review of the constitutionality of a trial, unless it is asserted that the state law itself violates the Constitution.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Whether the police engaged in the coercive tactics alleged by the defendant is a subsidiary fact; as such, the trial court's finding is entitled to deference on habeas review if it is supported in the record.”
    1 later decision 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.