Cherrix v. Braxton’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Townsend v. Sain · Murray v. Carrier · Brown v. Allen
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“because petitioner was free to send representative to monitor retesting, and petitioner could argue the vitiating effects of time if retesting produced different results)). 33 In support of his third purported consequence, the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“This Court was called upon to make a judgment about the reasonable necessity of DNA testing services to a condemned habeas petitioner's case. This Court made no proclamation or judgment about Cherrix's claims of innocence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The new DNA testing methods could possibly procure conclusive evidence demonstrating that a third person committed the murder and sodomy which may ultimately exonerate the habeas petitioner of capital murder.”
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.