Cox v. Ayers’s Empirical Analysis
613 F.3d 883 · 2009
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Lockhart v. McCree
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“every effort [must] be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cox v. Ayers“the evidence against Petitioner was so overwhelming that the marginal bias created by the shackles had no prejudicial effect”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cox v. Ayers
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.