McKenna v. McDaniel’s Empirical Analysis
65 F.3d 1483 · 1995
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Pellegrini v. State (2001), Moran v. E.k. McDaniel (1996)
26 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Doyle v. Ohio · Lockett v. Ohio
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Thus, the independent [and adequate] state grounds doctrine bars the federal courts from reconsidering the issue in the context of habeas corpus review as long as the state court explicitly invokes a state procedural bar rule as a separate basis for its decision.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hill v. Roe · Hill v. Roe“will not review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hill v. Roe · Hill v. Roe“Even in a weighing state, however, invalidation of one of several aggravating factors may make no difference if there were no mitigating circumstances against which the state court could balance the remaining aggravating factors. See Neuschafer v. Whitley, 816 F.2d 1390, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). But where some mitigating factors exist, there must either be a new sentencing hearing before a jury or the state appellate court must reweigh or conduct harmless error review in order to give the defendant the individualized considerations required by the Constitution. Clemons [v. Mississippi], 494 U.S. [738] at 746, 752, 110 S. Ct. [1441] at 1447, 1450.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Witter v. State
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.