Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 562 F.3d 656 - Powell v. Kelly

Powell v. Kelly’s Empirical Analysis

562 F.3d 656 · 2009

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
March 2022
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2022

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

70200920102020decided

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 · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Ashe v. Swenson · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden

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

  1. “. “ ‘As a matter of trial strategy, counsel could well decide not to call family members as witnesses because family members can be easily impeached for bias.’ Bergmann v. McCaughtry, 65 F.3d 1372, 1380 (7th Cir.1995). “ ‘Once counsel conducts a reasonable investigation of law and facts in a particular case, his strategic decisions are “virtually unchallengeable.” [Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 ] at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052 [ (1984) ]. Tactical or reasonable professional judgments are not deficient but a failure to investigate a material matter due to inattention may be deficient. When the claim is that counsel failed to present a sufficient mitigating case during sentencing, the inquiry “is not whether counsel should have presented a mitigation case” but “whether the investigation supporting counsel’s decision not to introduce mitigating evidence ... was itself reasonable.” See Wiggins [v. Smith ], 539 U.S. [510] at 523, 123 S.Ct. 2527 [(2003)] (internal citations omitted).’ ””
    3 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.