Brewer v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
119 F.3d 993 · 1997
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 17 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2022 · most notably Day v. McDonough (2006), Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017)
31 federal appellate · 17 district · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Batson v. Kentucky · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Kyles v. Whitley
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n cases where defense counsel fails to make a timely objection, the state does not waive the objection, and the appellate decision rested on that ground, that is “a classic example of a procedural default, and petitioner can succeed in his habeas case only by showing cognizable cause for, and cognizable prejudice from, his procedural default or, alternatively, by demonstrating that the federal court’s failure to address the claim on habeas review will occasion a miscarriage of justice.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cruz v. Maloney“The trial Judge is thus likely to have a much better sense than any appellate panel of whether a particular challenge can readily be explained by some reason other than race or gender -- for example, other characteristics of the juror, the juror's demeanor, or something in the juror's background suggesting sympathy for one side or the other.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the state court declined to hear [the federal claims] because the prisoner failed to meet a state procedural requirement.”
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.