Lambert v. McBride’s Empirical Analysis
365 F.3d 557 · 2004
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Williams v. Taylor · 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“procedures that .... are 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, " and "without which the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously diminished.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Saylor v. Indiana“Because the rule in Apprendi is not retroactive ..., it stands to follow that the rule in Ring , an Apprendi child, is not retroactive for the same reasons.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the procedure followed in this case is called into serious question by Ring [].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lambert v. State
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.