Epsom v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
330 F.3d 49 · 2003
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. United States · Lema v. United States · Commonwealth v. Curtis · Fortini v. Murphy
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“first, trial counsel's performance [was] deficient in some way sufficiently substantial to deny him effective representation; and second, that deficiency . . . result[ed] in prejudice, defined as a 'reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result . . . would have been different.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the net reckoning is patently unreasonable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roy v. Coplan, NHSP
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.