Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 453 F.3d 690 - Dickerson v. Bagley

Dickerson v. Bagley’s Empirical Analysis

453 F.3d 690 · 2006

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
4
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably State v. Hunter (2011), State v. Maxwell (2014)

22 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

190200620102020decided

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 · Teague v. Lane · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Wiggins v. Smith, 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “AEDPA prohibits a federal court from granting a writ of habeas corpus to a person in custody pursuant to a state court judgment with respect to a claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the adjudication of the claim— (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 dissent
  2. “strategic choices made after less than complete investigation will not pass muster as an excuse when a full investigation would have revealed a large body of mitigating evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “It is not reasonable to refuse to investigate when the investigator does not know the relevant facts the investigation will uncover.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.