Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 513 F.3d 618 - Brooks v. Bagley

Brooks v. Bagley’s Empirical Analysis

513 F.3d 618 · 2008

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Clabourne v. Ryan (2014), Sharpe v. Bell (2010)

22 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

270200820102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Ohio Northern District Court)

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 · Harris v. Reed · Carey Warden v. Saffold

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

  1. “Just as a state court wishing to invoke an independent and adequate state ground to dispose of a case “need not fear reaching the merits of a federal claim in an alternative holding,” so it need not fear losing the benefit of the doubt that AEDPA gives to state court rulings whenever it invokes an independent and adequate state ground as an alternative holding.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “accusation that [Defendant’s wife] was having an incestuous relationship with the couple’s oldest son,” and the Defendant’s”
    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.