Holman v. Gilmore’s Empirical Analysis
126 F.3d 876 · 1997
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 128 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2017 · most notably Woodford Warden v. Garceau (2003), 186 Ill. 2d 83 - People v. Evans (1999)
63 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Batson v. Kentucky · Teague v. Lane · Witherspoon v. Illinois
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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (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.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Paters v. Kent · House v. Duckworth“This means that only a clear error in applying Strickland's standard would support a writ of habeas corpus.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he motion for counsel is not itself a petition, because it does not call for (or even permit) a decision on the merits. And it is 'the merits' that the amended § 2254(d)(1) is all about.”
4 later decisions 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.