Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 281 F.3d 851 - Turner v. Calderon

Turner v. Calderon’s Empirical Analysis

281 F.3d 851 · 2002

Citation profile

136
cited by 136 later decisions
3
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

49 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 136 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably Williams v. Woodford (2002), Beardslee v. Woodford (2003)

49 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

990200220102020decided

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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Slack v. McDaniel · Williams v. Taylor · 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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Because of the limited scope of habeas corpus review, trial errors do not warrant relief unless the errors had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “cannot be required to accurately predict what the jury or court might find, ... he can be required to give the defendant the tools he needs to make an intelligent decision”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “At the guilt phase Mr. Ellery was trying to establish lack of premeditation and intent as a defense, while at the penalty phase Mr. Ellery should have been trying to make Turner seem less culpable and therefore more deserving of life. Not only did Mr. Ellery fail to question Turner’s mother, half-sister, and cousin, all of whom he called to testify at the penalty phase, about Turner’s drug use, he also failed to question them about whether Turner’s father was abusive toward his children or whether there was any history of substance abuse in the family. In sum, Mr. Ellery did nothing to demonstrate that Turner’s actions were influenced by his early childhood.”
    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.