Landrum v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
625 F.3d 905 · 2010
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson · Murray v. Carrier
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“letters predating the filing of the petition, documents, exhibits, ... answers under oath to written interrogatories propounded by the judge, [and] [affidavits.” 11 . Even if Cullen did not control — in either whole or part — our resolution of this issue, we would conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Champ’s requests to place additional evidence before it. The district court correctly concluded that either Mr. Champ’s supplementation requests were”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Champ v. Zavaras
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.