Cornell v. Kirkpatrick’s Empirical Analysis
665 F.3d 369 · 2011
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
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 · Williams v. Taylor · Berger v. United States · Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc · Knowles v. Mirzayance
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘the increment of incorrectness beyond error need not be great; otherwise, habeas relief would be limited to state court decisions so far off the mark as to suggest judicial incompetence.’ ” Cornell v. Kirkpatrick, 665 F.3d 369 , 375 (2d Cir.2011) (quoting Georgison v. Donelli, 588 F.3d 145 , 154 (2d Cir.2009)). 20 . A necessary corollary to this point is that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jackson v. Conway
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.