Nevers v. Killinger’s Empirical Analysis
169 F.3d 352 · 1999
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 149 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Harris v. Stovall (2000), Matteo v. Superintendent (1999)
66 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Kotteakos v. United States
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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he deference to the state courts’ judgments required by the AEDPA is achieved by adopting the rule that the unreasonableness of a state court’s application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent will not be “debatable among reasonable jurists,” Drinkard, 97 F.3d at 769, if it is “so offensive to existing precedent, so devoid of record support, or so arbitrary, as to indicate that it is outside the universe of plausible, credible outcomes,” O’Brien, 145 F.3d at 25.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim- (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 on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a state court decision is so clearly incorrect that it would not be debatable among reasonable jurists.”
7 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.