Parker v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis
565 F.3d 1258 · 2009
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Bernal-Benitez (2010), Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (2011)
11 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
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 · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Illinois v. Gates · Batson v. Kentucky
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The prosecutor’s failure to 'strike similarly situated jurors- is not pretextual ... ‘where ■ there are relevant "differences between the struck jurors and the comparator jurors.’ United States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d 968, 1004 (11th Cir. 2001). The prosecutor’s explanation ‘does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible;' so long as the reason is not inherently discriminatory, it suffices.’ Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 338 , 126 S.Ct. 969, 973-74 , 163 L.Ed.2d 824 (2006) (quotation marks-and citation omitted).”"”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Neither a prosecutor’s mistaken belief about a juror nor failure to ask a voir dire question provides 'clear and convincing’ evidence of pretext.” Parker, 565 F.3d at 1271 . See also McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1311 (11th Cir.2005) (”
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.