Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 333 F.3d 592 - Henderson v. Cockrell

Henderson v. Cockrell’s Empirical Analysis

333 F.3d 592 · 2003

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
1
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Woodfox v. Cain (2010), Murdoch v. Castro (2010)

29 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

380200320102020decided

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. § 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 · Slack v. McDaniel · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson

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

  1. “A federal habeas court plainly cannot grant relief where the last state court to consider the claim raised by the petitioner expressly and unambiguously based its denial of relief on an independent and adequate state law procedural ground. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). A state procedural rule is adequate if it is “firmly established” and regularly and consistently applied by the court. James v. Kentucky, 466 U.S. 341, 348 , 104 S.Ct. 1830 , 80 L.Ed.2d 346 (1984). A state procedural rule is independent if it does not depend on a federal constitutional ruling. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 75 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “AEDPA's standards of review [were] inapplicable”
    1 later decision 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.