Hicks v. Straub’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Bruton v. United States · United States v. Wade · 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“prosecutorial misconduct claim ... [that petitioner presented] in his state court briefs were `well within the mainstream of constitutional law' [on the Confrontation Clause] such that the Michigan state courts should have recognized and addressed the Confrontation Clause issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hicks v. Straub“failed to overcome the presumption that he was afforded effective assistance of counsel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hicks v. Straub“[p]etitioner could have presented his Confrontation Clause claim in a clearer manner,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hicks v. Straub
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.