Davis v. Lambert’s Empirical Analysis
388 F.3d 1052 · 2004
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably Julian v. Bartley (2007), Harris v. Thompson (2012)
24 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Townsend v. Sain · Harris v. Reed · Michael Wayne Williams v. John Taylor Warden
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.
“(A) the claim relies on— (i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional eiTor, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Under pre-AEDPA standards, a federal evidentiary hearing is required if (1) a habeas petitioner alleges facts which, if proved, would entitle him to relief and (2) the state courts — for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner — never considered the claim in a full and fair hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Richardson v. Briley“in this case, there exists a 'reasonable probability' that, but for counsel's errors, the jury might have reached a different verdict,” but remanding for evidentiary hearing to determine what witness's testimony would have been because”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harris v. Thompson
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.