Cannon v. Mullin’s Empirical Analysis
297 F.3d 989 · 2002
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Teague v. Lane · Ring v. Arizona · Bousley v. United States · Cage v. Louisiana
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is clear ... that Ring is simply an extension of Apprendi to the death penalty context”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[I]f [the Supreme Court] hold[s] in Case One that a particular type of rule applies retroactively to cases on collateral review and hold[s] in Case Two that a given rule is of that particular type, then it necessarily follows that the given rule applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. In such circumstances, [the Court] can be said to have ‘made’ the given rule retroactive to cases on collateral review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. In re Gieswein“altered the meaning of [Arizona's] substantive criminal law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Summerlin v. Stewart
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.