Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 510 F.3d 32 - Sleeper v. Spencer

Sleeper v. Spencer’s Empirical Analysis

510 F.3d 32 · 2007

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 30 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Yeboah-Sefah v. Ficco (2009), Foxworth v. St. Amand (2009)

10 federal appellate · 30 district · 1 state decisions

260200720102020decided

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 · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Sumner v. Mata · Yarborough v. Gentry

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

  1. “[T]he state court correctly identifies the governing legal principles, but (i) applies those principles to the facts in an objectively unreasonable manner; (ii) unreasonably extends clearly established legal principles to a new context where they should not apply; or (iii) unreasonably refuses to extend established principles to a new context where they should apply-”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a] 15 reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a reviewing court need not address both requirements if the evidence as to either is lacking. As the Supreme Court has recognized, '[ijf it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that 5 Case l:06-cv-00353-SM Document 47 Filed 06/24/09 Page 6 of 9 course should be followed.'’”
    2 later decisions 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.