Case Citator › Davis v. Alaska

Davis v. Alaska

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
415 U.S. 308
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
154 of 154
Citing cases (total)
5,926
Treatment dates
1986
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. The completed review of all 154 flagged citations confirmed 1 limiting treatment, listed below. Delaware v. Van Arsdall confined Davis v. Alaska's statement that no showing of a lack of prejudice could cure the confrontation error to Davis's facts and held that an improper denial of bias cross-examination is subject to harmless-error review.
More on how this was screened

Lower courts among the citing opinions reported that intervening Supreme Court treatment but could not themselves limit Davis; the entry is therefore anchored on Van Arsdall's own opinion. The remaining reviewed citations applied Davis's protection for bias-oriented cross-examination, used distinctions within Davis's own terms, or placed unrelated treatment language nearby.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

5,926 later cases cite Davis v. Alaska; 154 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Davis v. Alaska?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Court confined Davis's no-prejudice language to its facts and rejected reading Davis as requiring automatic reversal for the confrontation error.

    Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Read properly, however, Davis does not support an automatic reversal rule, and the above-quoted language merely reflects the view that on the facts of that case the trial court’s error had done “serious damage” to the petitioner’s defense.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Davis v. Alaska and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace