Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 304 F.3d 677 - Brown v. Sternes

Brown v. Sternes’s Empirical Analysis

304 F.3d 677 · 2002

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
3
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably State v. Thiel (2003), 358 Ill. App. 3d 102 - People v. Makiel (2005)

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions

350200220102020decided

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 · Williams v. Taylor · Kimmelman v. Morrison · Drope v. Missouri · Pennsylvania v. Finley

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

  1. “Because that testing process generally will not function properly unless defense counsel has done some investigation into the prosecution's case and into various defense strategies, [the Supreme Court has] noted that `counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(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.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[a]ttorneys have an obligation to explore all readily available sources of evidence that might benefit their clients.”
    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.