Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 296 F.3d 685 - Hall v. Luebbers

Hall v. Luebbers’s Empirical Analysis

296 F.3d 685 · 2002

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably Winfield v. Roper (2006), Middleton v. Roper (2006)

22 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions

300200220102020decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Williams v. Taylor · Wainwright v. Sykes · Schlup 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “There is no evidence here that the jurors ever saw the leg and waist shackles. The record does not show whether Hall was already seated at the defense table or whether the shackles were visible to the jury. There is no evidence that Hall’s ability to participate in the proceedings was hindered, and the immediate removal of the handcuffs ameliorated any prejudice. We do not find persuasive any contention that the use of shackles during the penalty phase would necessarily lead jurors to conclude that they must impose a death sentence. These jurors had already found Hall guilty of first degree murder and could have found shackles to be a reasonable security measure.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Under AEDPA[,] habeas relief cannot be granted on any claim “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim ... 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 “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).”
    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.