Lambright v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
698 F.3d 808 · 2012
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Simmons v. United States · National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f a prisoner is successful in persuading a federal court to grant the writ, the court should aim to restore him to the position he would have occupied, had the first trial been constitutionally error-free. Giving the prosecution the advantage of obtaining the defense cásenle— and possibly even forcing the first lawyer to testify against the client during the second trial — would assuredly not put the parties back at the same starting gate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in some circumstances petitioners ... are permitted to refuse to answer questions by asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“is narrow and courts must limit the use of any privileged testimony to litigation of the habeas claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.