Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 73 F.3d 733 - Kavanagh v. Berge

Kavanagh v. Berge’s Empirical Analysis

73 F.3d 733 · 1996

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
January 2011
most recently cited

25 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently January 2011 · most notably Eddmonds v. Peters (1996), Bocian v. Godinez (1996)

25 federal appellate ·

280199620002010decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Townsend v. Sain · Lockhart v. Fretwell · Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes · Fussell v. Price

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

  1. “Where the facts are in dispute, the federal court in habeas corpus must hold an evidentiary hearing if the habeas applicant did not receive a full and fair evidentiary hearing in a state court, either at the time of trial or in a collateral proceeding. In other words a federal evidentiary hearing is required unless the state-court trier of fact has after a full hearing reliably found the relevant facts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “made after a hearing on the merits and are fairly supported by the record,”
    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.