Applying harmless error standard to trial errors
Also stated as: Harmless error after step two evaluation sequence
The pages courts cite for it
- Cited for: Applying harmless error standard to trial errors
- Cited for: Harmless error analysis of trial errors
- Cited for: Applying harmless-error standard to trial errors
Ranked by how often California courts cite each page. The bar is how citing opinions treated that page (green followed, yellow questioned or limited, red negative); a red or yellow chip is the case’s own overall treatment.
California opinions citing these pages
- People v. Glukhoy, 77 Cal. App. 5th 576 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)
- In re Hansen, 227 Cal. App. 4th 906 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)
- People v. Concha, 182 Cal. App. 4th 1072 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)
- People v. Cross, 190 P.3d 706 (Cal. 2008)
- People v. Pitto, 180 P.3d 338 (Cal. 2008)
- People v. Flood, 957 P.2d 869 (Cal. 1998)
- People v. Evans, 62 Cal. App. 4th 186 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)
- People v. Harris, 886 P.2d 1193 (Cal. 1994)
From the opinions citing the top pages above (up to 400 per page are read), most pages cited first, then newest.
Named doctrine
The doctrine as California courts name it, with the cases on each side (State Issue Map).
Nearest issues
- 38 opinions
- 39 opinions
- 20 opinions
- 65 opinions
- 8 opinions
- 70 opinions
- 14 opinions
- 21 opinions
Filed under: Harmless and Plain Error Analysis
Where else it is alive
Opinions per jurisdiction citing these pages. A span that stops early can mean the doctrine was dropped there.
How this is built: each issue is a set of opinion pages that later courts cite for the same proposition, grouped from what the citing courts wrote. Names are machine-written from those citations; read the cases before relying on them. Search case law