Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 335 F.3d 1303 - Clark v. Crosby

Clark v. Crosby’s Empirical Analysis

335 F.3d 1303 · 2003

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
1
states following
January 2023
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably Ferrell v. Hall (2011), Hodges v. Attorney General (2007)

14 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

250200320102020decided

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 · Yates v. United States · Stromberg v. People of State of California · Griffin v. United States · Murray v. United States

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

  1. “A federal court may not grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner on any claim that has been adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the adjudication (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We review de novo the district court's dismissal of a [section] 2254 petition. We review the district court's factual determinations for clear error . . . . An ineffective assistance of . . . counsel claim presents a mixed question of law and fact, and we review such a claim de novo.”
    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.