Assessing harmless error regarding opening statement denial
Also stated as: Opening Statement Error and Harmlessness
14 federal opinions cite these pages1984–20252 pages cited by federal courts
The pages courts cite for it
- Cited for: Assessing harmless error regarding opening statement denial
- Cited for: Analyzing harmless error in denying opening statement
Ranked by how often federal 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.
Federal opinions citing these pages
- Holland v. United States, No. 3:21-cv-01277 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 5, 2025)
- Bell v. Lumpkin, No. 1:23-cv-00556 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2023)
- Exavier v. United States, No. 0:20-cv-62172 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2021)
- McDavid v. Wilson, No. 3:17-cv-01843 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 15, 2021)
- Bradley v. United States, 676 F. App'x 895 (11th Cir. 2017)
- United States v. Arthur C. Bieganowski, 313 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2002)
- United States v. Martinez, No. 00-50296 (5th Cir. Sept. 24, 2001)
- United States v. Sylvester, No. 96-60796 (5th Cir. June 29, 1998)
- United States v. Mark Sylvester, 143 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1998)
- United States v. Jimmie Lee Boykins, 915 F.2d 1573 (6th Cir. 1990)
- United States v. Thomas Norman Brooks, 786 F.2d 638 (5th Cir. 1986)
- United States v. Antonio E. Bascaro, Patrick M. Waldrop, Russell Hobson, Iii, Manuel Eric Villanueva, Gustavo J. Fernandez, Manuel W. James, United States of Am., Cross-Appellee v. Manuel W. James, Cross-Appellant, 742 F.2d 1335 (11th Cir. 1984)
- United States v. Bascaro, 742 F.2d 1335 (11th Cir. 1984)
- United States v. Chan Walker Zielie, 734 F.2d 1447 (11th Cir. 1984)
From the opinions citing the top pages above (up to 400 per page are read), most pages cited first, then newest.
Nearest issues
- 32 opinions
- 73 opinions
- 9 opinions
- 25 opinions
- 274 opinions
- 121 opinions
- 116 opinions
- 8 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