Hamilton v. Ayers’s Empirical Analysis
583 F.3d 1100 · 2009
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Breton v. Commissioner of Correction (2017), Pinholster v. Ayers (2009)
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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. § 2253 (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 · Brady v. State of Maryland · Slack v. McDaniel · 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“catastrophic and permanent effects on those who ... survive it. It has a severe impact on the child’s mental development and maturation. Sustained feelings of terror, panic, confusion, and abandonment as a child have long term consequences for adult behavior. Psychosis, dissociative states, depression, disturbed thinking and alcohol and drug dependency are directly linked to child victimization.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. James v. Schriro · James v. Ryan“[I]n assessing prejudice, we must compare the evidence that actually was presented to the jury with the evidence that might have been presented had counsel acted differently and evaluate whether the difference between what was presented and what could have been presented is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceedings. This requires us to evaluate the totality of the available mitigation evidence — both that adduced at trial, and the evidence adduced in the habeas proceeding[ — ]and reweigh it against the evidence in aggravation. Prejudice is established if there is a reasonable probability that at least one juror would have struck a different balance between life and death.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wharton v. Chappell“We review the district court’s decision to grant habeas relief de novo. We review de novo questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact, whether decided by the district court or the state courts. The district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. We therefore accept its findings ‘absent a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ State court factual findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness, subject to eight exceptions enumerated in the previous version of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sivak v. Hardison
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.