Chandler v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
813 F.2d 773 · 1987
Citation profile
137 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 183 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Byrd v. Collins (2000), Combs v. Coyle (2000)
137 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
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 · Rose v. Lundy · Solem v. Helm · Rummel v. Estelle · Skinner v. State of Oklahoma Williamson
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 183 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is a well-established principle of appellate review that appellate courts do not address claims not properly presented below.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage“so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is a well-established principle of appellate review that appellate courts do not address claims not properly presented below.... [T]his court relie[s] on this principle in rejecting attempts by habeas petitioners to assert new claims on appeal not presented in their petition or proceedings below.”
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.