Pinholster v. Ayers’s Empirical Analysis
590 F.3d 651 · 2009
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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 · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Williams v. Taylor · Teague v. Lane · Cuyler v. Sullivan
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No particular set of detailed rules for counsel’s conduct can satisfactorily take account of the variety of circumstances faced by defense counsel or the range of legitimate decisions.... ” Strickland itself rejected the notion that the same investigation will be required in every case. It is “[r]are” that constitutionally competent representation will require “any one technique or approach.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Miles v. Ryan · Miles v. Ryan““(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““If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that— “(A) the claim relies on— “(i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to eases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or “(ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and “(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cullen v. Pinholster
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.