Citation network
O'Neal Vs. McAninch
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Oct 31, 1994
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 432 (1994) October Term, 1994 Syllabus O'Neal V. McaninchSearch
-
see, e. g., Brecht v. AbrahamsonSearch
-
legal conclusion rests upon three considerations. First, it is supported by precedent. See, e. g., Kotteakos v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 18 ,24. Brecht, supra, at 637, and Palmer v. HoffmanSearch
-
Simmonds Ballentine of the Virgin Islands, James S. Gilmore III of Virginia, Christine O. Gregoire of Washington, Darrell v. McGrawSearch
-
O'Neal v. MorrisSearch
-
Id., at 145 (quoting Brecht v. AbrahamsonSearch
-
U. S. 619 , 627 (1993) (quoting, and adopting, standard set forth in Kotteakos v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
question in the context of direct review of a nonconstitutional trial error, it applied the same rule. In Kotteakos v. UnitedSearch
-
whether an error affected a jury in this way, the judge must treat the error as if it did so. See also United States v. OlanoSearch
-
Ibid. We must concede that in Brecht v. AbrahamsonSearch
-
We further acknowledge that this Court, in Palmer v. HoffmanSearch
-
see Bruno v. UnitedSearch
-
in civil cases. See, e. g., Erskine v. ConsolidatedSearch
-
Flanigan v. BurlingtonSearch
-
Creekmore v. CrossnoSearch
-
The State contends that, because a habeas proceeding, technically speaking, is a civil proceeding, see, e. g., Browder v. DirectorSearch
-
and applies in both civil and criminal proceedings. See McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. GreenwoodSearch
-
court is in grave doubt as to the harmlessness of an error that affects substantial rights, it should grant relief. v. ForSearch
-
burden of persuasion with respect to whether the defendant's actions caused harm. See, e. g., Wards Cove Packing Co. v. AtonioSearch
-
Mc Cleskey v. ZantSearch
-
U. S. 436 , 453 (1986) (plurality opinion) (quoting Engle v. IsaacSearch
-
indicate that upsetting the finality of judgments should be countenanced only in rare instances. See, e. g., Brecht v. AbrahamsonSearch
-
U. S. 195 , 210 (1989) (O'CONNOR, J., concurring) (quoting Harris v. ReedSearch
-
Brecht, supra, at 627 (quoting Kotteakos v. UnitedSearch
-
and United States 449 v. OlanoSearch
-
be of greater relevance. As the Court admits, habeas is a civil proceeding. See ante, at 440 (citing Browder v. DirectorSearch
-
Dept. of Corrections of Ill., 434 U. S. 257 , 269 (1978)). Although the Court acknowledges that Palmer v. HoffmanSearch
-
the issue place the burden of showing prejudice on the civil appellant, just as Palmer did. See, e. g., Smith v. Wal-MartSearch
-
United States v. KilloughSearch
-
United States v. SeaboardSearch
-
see also ante, at 440 (citing cases from the Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits). But see Barth v. GelbSearch
-
when conducting a harmless-error analysis, United States v. HastingSearch
-
Syllabus O'NEAL v. McANINCHSearch
-
Kotteakos v. UnitedSearch
-
and Palmer v. HoffmanSearch
-
In Kotteakos v. UnitedSearch
-
Bruno v. UnitedSearch
-
Erskine v. ConsolidatedSearch
-
Browder v. DirectorSearch
-
See McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. GreenwoodSearch
-
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. AtonioSearch
-
Harris v. ReedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial