Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 379 F.3d 1041 - Kennedy v. Lockyer

Kennedy v. Lockyer’s Empirical Analysis

379 F.3d 1041 · 2004

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Fry v. Pliler (2007), Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc. (2006)

22 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

240200420102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Bruton v. United States · United States v. Wade · Santobello v. New York · Brecht v. Abrahamson

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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Various tactical and strategic decisions made by Kennedy’s new counsel might have been affected had he been provided with a copy of the prosecutor’s opening statement and closing argument; he might, for example, have been able to anticipate some of the prosecution’s key arguments, identify potential weaknesses in its case, assess the relative weight that the prosecution would place on various items of evidence, and better determine what would be needed to refute them.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[T]he state must provide an indigent defendant with a transcript of prior proceedings when that transcript is needed for an effective defense or appeal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”
    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.