Cook v. McKune’s Empirical Analysis
323 F.3d 825 · 2003
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Clark v. Murphy (2003), Parker v. Scott (2005)
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
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 · Ohio v. Roberts · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade · Barber v. Page
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.
“Contrary to the district court's assertion, whether the facts found concerning the prosecution's efforts to produce the witness support the legal conclusion that it acted in good faith is a mixed question of law and fact. Under AEDPA, it is reviewed for an 'unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Grant v. Royal · Parker v. Scott“clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from this Court's decisions but unreasonably applies this principle to the facts of the prisoner's case. 44 We may not grant habeas relief under the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“federal habeas review of state convictions is limited when the state courts have adjudicated a claim on the merits.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.