Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 290 F.3d 500 - Everett v. Beard

Everett v. Beard’s Empirical Analysis

290 F.3d 500 · 2002

Citation profile

73
cited by 73 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
September 2020
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 73 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2020 · most notably Marshall v. Hendricks (2002), Joseph v. Coyle (2006)

37 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

540200220102020decided

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

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Estelle v. McGuire · Sandstrom v. Montana

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

  1. “unless it is clear from the face of the state court decision that the merits of the petitioner's constitutional claims were examined in light of federal law as established by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[Counsel’s status as a reasonably competent attorney is not strictly confined to the law as enunciated by the decisions of the jurisdiction’s highest court. More is expected from a reasonably competent attorney, especially one in a major criminal case, than merely to parrot Supreme Court cases.... Instead, a reasonably competent attorney will have reason to rely on authority, especially favorable authority, even if it has not yet been enunciated by the United States Supreme Court or the state’s supreme court.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “`resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law. . . .'”
    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.