764 F. Supp. 2d 545 - Martin v. Conway’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
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) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Bruton v. United States · North Carolina v. Alford · Hill v. Lockhart
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“) has filed a response to Karlsen's habeas petition, contending that all those grounds are meritless. DISCUSSION I. General Principles Federal habeas review is available for a state prisoner”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.”
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.