Tucker v. Ozmint’s Empirical Analysis
350 F.3d 433 · 2003
Citation profile
18 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Bell Warden v. Cone · Allen v. Oklahoma
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel's judgments,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Feder al 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 evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hope v. Cartledge“that Strickland does not require counsel to investigate every conceivable line of mitigating evidence no matter how unlikely the effort would be to assist the defendant at sentencing,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Emmett v. Kelly
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.