Schaetzle v. Cockrell’s Empirical Analysis
343 F.3d 440 · 2003
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Busby v. Dretke (2004), Woodfox v. Cain (2010)
38 federal appellate · 3 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 · Jackson v. Virginia · Williams v. Taylor · Lockhart v. Fretwell · George Smith Warden v. Lee Robbins
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It bears repeating that the test for federal habeas purposes is not whether [the petitioner made the showing required under Strickland ]. Instead, the test is whether the state court’s decision — that [the petitioner] did not make the Strickland-showing — was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, the standards, provided by the clearly established federal law (Strickland), for succeeding, on his [ineffective assistance of counsel] claim.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the challenged state court proceeding resulted in: (1) “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) “a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding”.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Green v. Quarterman“In reviewing a ruling on the merits of a habeas claim, the district court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error; its conclusions of law, de novo.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lave 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.