Williams v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
460 F.3d 789 · 2006
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Hooks v. Workman (2012), Morrison v. Board of Trustees (2009)
57 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Bagley · Coleman v. Thompson
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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(I) the petitioner phrased the federal claim in terms of the pertinent constitutional law or in terms sufficiently particular to allege a denial of the specific constitutional right in question; (2) the petitioner relied upon federal cases employing the constitutional analysis in question; (3) the petitioner relied upon state cases employing the federal constitutional analysis in question; or (4) the petitioner alleged “facts well within the mainstream of [the pertinent] constitutional law.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[C]umulative error claims are not cognizable on habeas because the Supreme Court has not spoken on this issue.”); Lorraine v. Coyle, 291 F.3d 416 , 447 (6th Cir.2002), amended on other grounds, 307 F.3d 459 (6th Cir.2002) (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“All twelve jurors must agree on a verdict. If all twelve members of the jury find by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances in a particular count of aggravated murder which the defendant was found guilty of committing outweigh the mitigating factors, then you must recommend to the Court a sentence of death as to that particular count. On the other hand, if, after considering all the relevant evidence admitted at the two trials and the arguments of counsel, you find that the State of Ohio failed to prove by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances in a particular count of aggravated murder which the defendant was found guilty of committing outweigh the mitigating factors, then you mil not recommend to the Court a sentence of death as to that particular count of aggravated murder. In that event, you will determine which of two possible life imprisonment sentences to recommend to the Court as to that particular count of aggravated murder. Your recommendation to the Court shall be one of the following: (1) that Lee Moore be sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after twenty full years of imprisonment; or, (2) that Lee Moore be sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after thirty full years imprisonment. You must understand that you make one of these recommendations — if you make one of these recommendations, it will be binding upon the Court and the Court must impose the specific life sentence y”
2 later decisions 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.