Hubbard v. Haley’s Empirical Analysis
317 F.3d 1245 · 2003
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Appellate journey
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) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Slack v. McDaniel · Wong Sun v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Gideon v. Wainwright
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“at sentencing on previously admitted evidence regarding Hubbard’s habit of drinking and his intoxication on the morning of the murder, arguing to the jury that these factors mitigated the crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wood v. Allen“[C]oercive police activity is a necessary predicate to a finding that the confession by a person with a low intelligence level is involuntary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“defense counsel, in defending their client's interests, need not urge every conceivable objection the law would provide.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brewster v. Hetzel
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.