Byrd v. Workman’s Empirical Analysis
645 F.3d 1159 · 2011
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson · Brecht v. Abrahamson · United States v. Young
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“plainly misapprehend[ed] or misstate[d] the record in making [its] findings, and the misapprehension goes to a material factual issue that is central to petitioner's claim.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 2254(d)(2) ), however, 'is a daunting standard-one that will be satisfied in relatively few cases.' That is because an 'unreasonable determination of the facts' does not, itself, necessitate relief.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Grant v. Royal · Wood v. Carpenter“To be deficient, the performance must be outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance. In other words, it must have been completely unreasonable, not merely wrong.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Grant v. Royal · Goode v. Carpenter
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.