128 F. Supp. 2d 848 - Rubin v. Gee’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Lindh v. Murphy · Kimmelman v. Morrison · Holloway v. Arkansas
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“on Rubin's defense team was an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court, constituting another basis for granting Rubin habeas relief. The court noted that the evidence included a detailed letter from Longest and Gavin to the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission explaining that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rubin v. Gee J“remov[ing] themselves from the case altogether so that they might become witnesses on her behalf. They never thought to draw the State's attention to their own actions regarding the handling of evidence at the crime scene or in causing the 24 hour delay in Rubin's surrender.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Rubin v. Gee J“[b]y failing to draw the spotlight on their own actions, whether for financial reasons (to remain in the case and gain a substantial fee) or out of fear for their own criminal liability, [Longest and Gavin] lapsed in their duty of representation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Rubin v. Gee J
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.