Allen v. Rc Lee’s Empirical Analysis
366 F.3d 319 · 2004
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Gutierrez v. McGinnis (2004), Lewis v. Horn (2009)
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Slack v. McDaniel · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Chapman v. State of California · Batson v. Kentucky
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) resulted in 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) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[i]t seems perverse that we ... consider denying habeas relief from a North Carolina death sentence imposed under North Carolina's death sentencing scheme because we believe, based upon our `reweighing' of the evidence under Brecht , that it should be upheld in the face of knowing that the North Carolina Supreme Court did not find the McKoy error harmless for that reason under the Chapman [v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967),] standard and would not have performed such a reweighing itself.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“even if a juror might not have found that each of those additional factors independently outweighed the aggravators, a reasonable juror well could have concluded to the contrary when considering those factors collectively, and in addition to the three unanimously found mitigators.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.