Conner v. McBride’s Empirical Analysis
375 F.3d 643 · 2004
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Williams v. Taylor
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] state court decision is `contrary to' federal law if the state court either incorrectly laid out governing Supreme Court precedent, or, having identified the correct rule of law, decided a case differently than a materially factually indistinguishable Supreme Court case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[U]nlike Wiggins, where [the postconviction] hearing revealed extensive physical and sexual abuse which the court found was unknown to counsel at sentencing but which likely would have been discovered by counsel had they not shirked their investigatory responsibilities, [petitioner] presented very little evidence at the [postconviction] hearing which was materially unknown to counsel. With respect to the `new' evidence which [petitioner] did introduce at the hearingregarding the significant impact of [petitioner's] discovery of his adoptive status, the extent of [petitioner's] step-father's alcoholism, and his own use of alcoholwe cannot consider counsel's failure to uncover it deficient performance since these facts were at least referenced and/or generally presented to the jury during the penalty phase by many of the same testifying witnesses."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Borchardt“(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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.