Mickens v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
227 F.3d 203 · 2000
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Glasser v. United States · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the possible conflict of interest presented by Saunders' successive representation of Hall and Mickens never ripened into an actual conflict nor was Saunders' advocacy impaired thereby.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mickens v. Taylor“inquiry as to prejudice for purposes of excusing [petitioner's] default ... incorporates the test for evaluating his underlying conflict of interest claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mickens v. Taylor
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.