Anderson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
338 F.3d 382 · 2003
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Morris v. Dretke (2005), Riley v. Payne (2003)
38 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Picard v. Connor · Vasquez v. Hillery
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A habeas petitioner fails to exhaust state remedies 'when he presents material additional evidentiary support to the federal court that was not presented to the state court.’”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Scott v. Hubert · Bell v. Epps“(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a lack of credibility might support a strategic decision not to call a witness to testify at trial, we explained that a witness’s character flaws cannot support a failure to investigate. Without so much as contacting a witness, much less speaking with him, counsel is “ill-equipped to assess his credibility or persuasiveness as a witness.” ... Strickland simply does not “require ... defer[ence] to decisions that are uninformed by an adequate investigation into the controlling facts and law.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Soffar v. Dretke
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.