Taylor v. Bradley’s Empirical Analysis
448 F.3d 942 · 2006
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently August 2021
7 federal appellate ·
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 · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Doyle v. Ohio · Bell Warden v. Cone · Holman v. Gilmore
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]s long as we are satisfied that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals took the constitutional standard seriously and produce[d] an answer within the range of defensible positions, we will affirm the district court's decision to deny the writ.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Felton v. Bartow“The bar for establishing that the state court's application of the Strickland [ineffective assistance of counsel] standard was 'unreasonable,' is a high one.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Felton v. Bartow
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.