Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 280 F.3d 826 - Stringer v. Hedgepeth

Stringer v. Hedgepeth’s Empirical Analysis

280 F.3d 826 · 2002

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
March 2010
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Lindh v. Murphy · Anderson v. Goeke · Moore v. Wyrick · Louisell v. Director of Iowa Department of Corrections · Jones v. Delo

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

  1. “[P]rosecutorial misconduct does not merit federal habeas relief unless the misconduct infected the trial with enough unfairness to render [petitioner's] conviction a denial of due process.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “reasonable probability that the error complained of affected the outcome of the trial — i.e., that absent the alleged impropriety the verdict probably would have been different.”
    1 later decision 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.