Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 470 F.3d 792 - Raley v. Ylst

Raley v. Ylst’s Empirical Analysis

470 F.3d 792 · 2006

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
4
states following
July 2023
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably United States v. Mitchell (2007), Fields v. Brown (2007)

21 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

310200620102020decided

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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc · Barefoot v. Estelle · Turner v. Louisiana

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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The bar for establishing prejudice is set lower in death-penalty sentencing cases than in guilt-phase challenges and noncapital cases.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is undisputed that [trial counsel] gave the three experts basic background information about Petitioner. [The mental health experts] testified in depositions that they knew that [petitioner had been abused by his mother, and there is no evidence that either doctor requested additional life history information. The experts interviewed [petitioner and thus had an opportunity to question him directly about his childhood. Additionally, during the habeas proceeding both doctors were given an exhaustive report regarding [petitioner's history. Neither said that the additional information would have changed his expert opinion significantly.” Id.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “`[W]here the defendant is aware of the essential facts enabling him to take advantage of any exculpatory evidence, the Government does not commit a Brady violation by not bringing the evidence to the attention of the defense.'”
    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.