Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 539 F.3d 256 - Bond v. Beard

Bond v. Beard’s Empirical Analysis

539 F.3d 256 · 2008

Citation profile

70
cited by 70 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
February 2025
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Wilson v. Sellers (2018), United States v. Moore (2011)

30 federal appellate · 2 district ·

510200820102020decided

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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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 · Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor · Bruton v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States

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

  1. “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Counsel’s failure to think ahead caused them to fail to inquire meaningfully into Bond’s childhood and mental health. They did not obtain readily available school records portraying a much troubled youth. Nor did they seek medical records or conduct a meaningful inquiry into Bond’s family life.... We will not excuse this conduct on. the ground that Bond and his family members did not tell counsel that his background provided fertile territory for mitigation arguments. Neither Bond nor his family had a duty to instruct counsel how to perform such a basic element of competent representation as the inquiry into a defendant’s background. They did not, as the Commonwealth suggests, have to volunteer ‘red flags’ about Bond’s mental health when trial counsel should have discovered that information through a basic inquiry into his background.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[failure to make a step-three finding ... would render the state court's decision either 'contrary to' or an 'unreasonable application' of Batson.”
    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.