Henness v. Bagley’s Empirical Analysis
644 F.3d 308 · 2011
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Terry v. Ohio · Brady v. State of Maryland · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Bagley
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An officer may rely on a complaint made by an individual whose name the officer does not know, but who made the complaint in open view of the officer. This case is fundamentally different from Northrop , because unlike a faceless telephone communication from out of the blue, a face-to-face encounter can afford police the ability to assess many of the elements that are relevant to determining whether information is sufficiently reliable to warrant police action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“an in-person informant's proximity in time and space to the reported criminal activity indicates the reliability of the tip, because it reflects that the informant acquired the information firsthand.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re B.A.R.“[a]n officer may rely on a complaint made by an individual whose name the officer does not know, but who made the complaint in open view of the officer,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re B.A.R.
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.