Cullen v. Pinholster’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
503 federal appellate · 35 district · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,140 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2021 · most notably Buck v. Davis (2017), 134 S. Ct. 1697 - White v. Woodall (2014)
503 federal appellate · 35 district · 49 state decisions — followed in 21 states
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 · Williams v. Taylor · Wainwright v. Sykes · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.
Cited together with Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Cullen v. Pinholster · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Harrington v. Richter
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 1,140 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 on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
67 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mitchell v. Epps · Brown v. Thaler“h[e]ld that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. Section 2254(d)(1) refers, in the past tense, to a state-court adjudication that “resulted in” a decision that was contrary to, or “involved” an unreasonable application of, established law. This backward-looking language requires an examination of the state-court decision at the time it was made. It follows that the record under review is limited to the record in existence at that same time ie., the record before the state court.”
14 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.