Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 536 F.3d 325 - Powell v. Quarterman

Powell v. Quarterman’s Empirical Analysis

536 F.3d 325 · 2008

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 2021

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

110200820102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Bagley

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

  1. “The Supreme Court has never expressly held that evidence that is turned over to the defense during trial has been “suppressed” within the meaning of Brady. Our court has held that such evidence is not considered to have been suppressed. In this Circuit, when the claim is untimely disclosure of Brady material, we have looked to whether the defendant was prejudiced by the tardy disclosure. We have held that a defendant is not prejudiced if the evidence is received in time for its effective use at trial. These principles that we have applied to claims of untimely disclosure of Brady material ... are consistent with the purpose of the Brady disclosure requirement, which is to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When a claim has been fairly presented to the state court, but the state court does not adjudicate the claim on the merits, and the claim is not procedurally defaulted, the deferential AEDPA standards of review do not apply.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts”
    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.