Williams v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis
612 F.3d 941 · 2009
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Lockett v. Ohio · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Ake v. Oklahoma · Eddings v. Oklahoma
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Penry and [Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 , 108 S.Ct. 1860 , 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988) ] involved juries that were precluded from properly considering mitigating circumstances because of misleading jury instruction forms.'' (citations omitted)); see also McCoskey v. Thaler, 478 Fed.Appx. 143 , 150 (5th Cir.2012) (per curiam) (highlighting Penry”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sprouse v. Stephens
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.