Mackey v. Russell’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Kyles v. Whitley
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(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 upon an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Loza v. Mitchell · Farley v. Lafler“the cumulative damage * * * [and] impact of counsel's ineffectiveness was sufficient to cast doubt on the jury's decision as to Mackey's credibility, and thus to the trial's eventual outcome.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“issue a conditional writ of habeas corpus, giving the State of Ohio 180 days within which to retry Mackey or release him from state custody.”
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.