Maddox v. Lord’s Empirical Analysis
818 F.2d 1058 · 1987
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 2015
10 federal appellate ·
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 · Michel v. State of Louisiana Poret · MacHibroda v. United States · National Farmers Union Insurance v. Crow Tribe of Indians
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“might be considered sound trial strategy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must hold an evidentiary hearing if the habeas applicant did not receive a full and fair evidentiary hearing in a state court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Strouse v. Leonardo
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.