Wilson v. Mazzuca’s Empirical Analysis
570 F.3d 490 · 2009
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2021 · most notably Cullen v. Pinholster (2011), Cullen v. Pinholster (2011)
11 federal appellate ·
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 · Kyles v. Whitley · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · United States v. Dominguez Benitez · Rompilla v. Beard
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The standard of review set forth in AEDPA is not conditional. It is stated in mandatory terms-habeas relief 'shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Langley v. Prince
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.