Kinder v. Bowersox’s Empirical Analysis

272 F.3d 532 · 2001

Citation profile

cited by 38 later decisions

states following

April 2014

most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (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 · Jackson v. Virginia · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Williams v. Taylor

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

“evident from voir dire with `unmistakable clarity' because many veniremen simply cannot be asked enough questions to reach the point where their bias has been made `unmistakably clear.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 212 F. Supp. 2d 1105 - Clemons v. Luebbers · United States v. Ortiz
“The factual findings of the state court also may be challenged in a § 2254 petition, but they are subject to an even more deferential review.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 555 F. Supp. 2d 1000 - Shaw v. DWYEAR · 619 F. Supp. 2d 661 - Worthington v. Roper
“, a presumption that will be rebutted only by”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 555 F. Supp. 2d 1000 - Shaw v. DWYEAR · 619 F. Supp. 2d 661 - Worthington v. Roper

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.