Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 137 F.3d 1404 - Correll v. Stewart

Correll v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis

137 F.3d 1404 · 1998

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
1
states following
September 2021
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably State v. Ring (2003), Bean v. Calderon (1998)

52 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

4801998200020102020decided

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 · Coleman v. Thompson · Townsend v. Sain · Murray v. Carrier · Estelle v. McGuire

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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[B]ecause trial counsel failed to present any evidence of Correll's purported mental illness which may have satisfied Ariz. Rev. St. S 13-703(E), Correll has `undermined confidence in the outcome' of the sentencing, thereby establishing the requisite Strickland prejudice.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “must establish not merely that the [alleged Presnell error] constituted a possibility of prejudice, but that [it] worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.”
    2 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.