Turner v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
35 F.3d 872 · 1994
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Rose v. Lee (2001), Dion Smallwood v. Gary Gibson Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma - (1999)
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Coleman v. Thompson · Gregg v. Georgia · Teague v. Lane
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when we apply an extant normative rule to a new set of facts (leaving intact the extant rule) generally we do not announce a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure for purposes of Teague.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Joseph Roger O'dell, III v. J.D. Netherland, Warden, Mecklenburg Correctional Center Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections James S. Gilmore, Iii, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia Commonwealth of Virginia, Joseph Roger O'dell, III v. J.D. Netherland, Warden, Mecklenburg Correctional Center Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections James S. Gilmore, Iii, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia Commonwealth of Virginia · Gray v. Thompson“[A] sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the court or jury shall (1) after consideration of the past criminal record of convictions of the defendant, find that there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a serious continuing threat to society or that his conduct in committing the offense for which he stands charged was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind or an aggravated battery to the victim; and (2) recommend that the penalty of death be imposed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“alone would result in an inestimable number of cases in which federal courts would be obliged to undertake full merits review of reasonable, and in many instances unassailable, state court judgments. For in many cases that are not currently reviewable on federal habeas, the state court's judgment (against the petitioner) will have been dictated by existing precedent. Any cases not subject to review under the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Joseph Roger O'dell, III v. J.D. Netherland, Warden, Mecklenburg Correctional Center Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections James S. Gilmore, Iii, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia Commonwealth of Virginia, Joseph Roger O'dell, III v. J.D. Netherland, Warden, Mecklenburg Correctional Center Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections James S. Gilmore, Iii, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia Commonwealth of Virginia · O'Dell III v. Jd Netherland J S III O'Dell III
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.