Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 282 F.3d 1204 - Killian v. Poole

Killian v. Poole’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

116
cited by 116 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 116 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States v. Hinkson (2009), Taylor v. Maddox (2004)

48 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

940200120102020decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States · Griffin v. California

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

  1. “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “which no adjudication on the merits in state court was possible,”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[E]ven if no single error were [sufficiently] prejudicial, where there are several substantial errors, `their cumulative effect may nevertheless be so prejudicial as to require reversal.'”
    2 later decisions 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.