Cunningham v. Wong’s Empirical Analysis
704 F.3d 1143 · 2013
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Appellate journey
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 · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Bagley
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[b]ecause many lawyers refrain from objecting during opening statement and closing argument, absent egregious misstatements, the failure to object during closing argument and opening statement is within the 'wide range' of permissible professional legal conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Noguera v. Davis“[E]ven if no single error were prejudicial, where there are several substantial errors, 'their cumulative effect may nevertheless be so prejudicial as to require reversal.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Noguera v. Davis“Dr. Coburn's testimony about Cunningham's mental state ... would [ ] have been cumulative”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Kayer v. Ryan
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.