Charles v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis
736 F.3d 380 · 2013
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Harrington v. Richter · Rompilla v. Beard
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“did not result from pure inattention, and this is not a case like Porter , where counsel wholly ignored multiple avenues of investigation,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a readily available file that the prosecution tipped-off to defense counsel.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“also subject to the deferential standards of AEDPA.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hummel v. Davis · Thompson v. Davis
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.