Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 698 F.3d 609 - Harris v. Thompson

Harris v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

698 F.3d 609 · 2012

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
4
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2251 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 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 · Jackson v. Virginia · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Wade · Coleman v. Thompson

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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[federal habeas relief may not be granted for claims subject to § 2254(d) unless it is shown that the earlier state court’s decision “was contrary to” federal law then clearly established in the holdings of [the Supreme Court]; or that it “involved an unreasonable application of’ such law; or that it “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts” in light of the record before the state court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[wjhen a defendant is deprived of favorable evidence, the same 'reasonable probability’ standard applies to determining materiality under Brady and ... to determining whether the accused was prejudiced for the purposes of Strickland”); Clay v. Bowersox, 367 F.3d 993 , 1000 (8th Cir. 2004) (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[T]he exclusion of defense evidence abridge[s] an accused's right to present a defense 'where the restriction is arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes' [it is] designed to serve, and the evidence implicate[s] a sufficiently weighty interest of the accused.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.