Serrano v. Fischer’s Empirical Analysis
412 F.3d 292 · 2005
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably United States v. Odeh (2008), Hawkins v. Costello (2006)
12 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 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Ylst v. Nunnemaker · Yarborough v. Alvarado · Geders v. United States · Perry v. Leeke
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We emphasize the narrowness of our holding. We do not hold that a ninety-minute bar on attorney-client communications during a recess from a defendant's testimony necessarily falls within the rule announced in Perry. Nor do we hold that it would constitute a reasonable application of Supreme Court precedent under § 2254(d)(1) to bar attorney-client communications during a lunch recess in circumstances other than those present in this case. . . . We only hold that in light of defense counsel's defiant behavior at trial, the state court decisions rejecting petitioner's deprivation-of-counsel claim were not contrary to Supreme Court precedent and did not involve an unreasonable application of that precedent within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Wjhile very specific rules may not permit much leeway in their interpretation, the same is not true of more general rules, the meaning of which “must emerge in application over the course of time.” [Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 , 124 S.Ct. 2140 , 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004) ]. “The more general the rule, the more leeway courts have in reaching outcomes in case by case determinations.” Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rosario v. Ercole“contrary to, [n]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.