Cox v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis
133 F.3d 565 · 1997
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Ramsey v. Bowersox (1998), State v. Carlson (2002)
20 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 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 Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Irvin v. Dowd · Jurek v. Texas · Boyde v. California
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A substantial showing is a showing that issues are debatable among reasonable jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or the issues deserve further proceedings.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Peremptory challenges are not of constitutional dimension loss of a peremptory challenge does not constitute a violation of the constitutional right to a fair jury. See Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 88 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988). As long as the jury that sits is impartial, the fact that the defendant had to use a peremptory challenge to achieve that result does not mean the Sixth Amendment was violated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pruett v. Norris
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.