Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 F.3d 612 - Andrews v. Collins

Andrews v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis

21 F.3d 612 · 1994

Citation profile

104
cited by 104 later decisions
4
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Drinkard v. Johnson (1996), Green v. Johnson (1997)

48 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

470199420002010decided

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 · Brady v. State of Maryland · Batson v. Kentucky · United States v. Bagley · Wainwright v. Sykes

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

  1. “a showing that the facts of the case and the laws of the State warrant such an instruction.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “1. whether the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and with reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased would result; 2. whether there is a possibility that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence Lhat would constitute a continuing threat to society; and 3. if raised by the evidence, whether the conduct of the defendant in killing the deceased was unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Moreover, the record reflects that counsel, during the punishment stage, relied solely upon what he believed to be the jury’s residual doubts about the evidence presented at the guilt phase of Andrews’ trial. Such a strategy “has been recognized as an extremely effective argument for defendants in capital cases.” [citations omitted]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.