French v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
332 F.3d 430 · 2003
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably State v. Maestas (2012), Caver v. Straub (2003)
24 federal appellate · 6 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. § 2241 (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 · Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · Gideon v. Wainwright · Penson v. Ohio
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(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. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) (2001)).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“prevented from assisting the accused during a critical stage of the proceeding.” ’ ”) (citing Arbolaez); Arbolaez, 450 F.3d at 1294 (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lake v. State · Caver v. Straub““In light of clear federal law, the Michigan courts unreasonably applied harmless error analysis to French’s deprivation of counsel during the supplemental instruction. The district court properly granted the writ of habeas corpus.” 332 F.3d at 438 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hereford v. Warren
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.