Eley v. Bagley’s Empirical Analysis
604 F.3d 958 · 2010
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson · Lockett v. Ohio · 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the court must determine that there is a state procedural rule that is applicable to the petitioner’s claim and that the petitioner failed to comply with the rule.... Second, the court must decide whether the state courts actually enforced the state procedural sanction. ... Third, the court must decide whether the state procedural forfeiture is an “adequate and independent” state ground on which the state can rely to foreclose review of a federal constitutional claim....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“' "[T]he failure to present additional mitigating evidence that is merely cumulative of that already presented does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Retroactive determinations of competency are difficult, and any such determination must be based on evidence derived from knowledge contemporaneous to trial”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bolden · State v. Bolden
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.