103 F. Supp. 2d 749 - Marshall v. Hendricks’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1702 · 18 U.S.C. § 1725 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2264 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 39 U.S.C. § 201 · 39 U.S.C. § 3623 · 5 U.S.C. § 301
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1)resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, or (2)resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]ven looking at petitioner's most disturbing suggestion, that Zeitz failed to sufficiently investigate and prepare for petitioner's penalty phase, petitioner has not pointed to specifics or explained precisely how deposing Mr. Zeitz would allow him to succeed in proving such a Strickland violation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“agrees with the New Jersey Supreme Court that because Mr. Zeitz consistently consulted with petitioner throughout the penalty phase and because his request does not specify what he hopes to find by deposing Mr. Zeitz, this Court is unwilling to second-guess Mr. Zeitz's strategic decisions.”
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.