Turner v. Crosby’s Empirical Analysis
339 F.3d 1247 · 2003
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (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 · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Teague v. Lane · Lockett v. Ohio · Ring v. Arizona
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f the petitioner simply never raised a claim in state court, and it is obvious that the unexhausted claim would now be procedurally barred due to a state-law procedural default, the federal court may foreclose the petitioner’s filing in state court; the exhaustion requirement and procedural default principles combine to mandate dismissal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“based on the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and not on a perceived, much less documented, need to enhance accuracy or fairness of the fact-finding in a capital sentencing context.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“agree[d] with other courts who have concluded that because Apprendi was a procedural rule, it automatically follows that Ring is also a procedural rule.”
2 later decisions 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.