Littlejohn v. Royal’s Empirical Analysis
875 F.3d 548 · 2017
Citation profile
3 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 · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · California v. Green
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“), 875 F.3d 548 , 552 (10th Cir. 2017) ("These two prongs may be addressed in any order; indeed, in Strickland , the Supreme Court emphasized that 'if it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, ... that course should be followed.' " (omission in original) (quoting Strickland , 466 U.S. at 697 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 )). "[O]ur review of counsel's performance under the first prong of Strickland is a 'highly deferential' one.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In doing so, we ... consider the strength of the State's case and the number of aggravating factors the jury found to exist, as well as the mitigating evidence the defense did offer and any additional mitigating evidence it could have offered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[S]uch errors will suffice to permit relief under [the] cumulative error doctrine only when the constitutional errors committed in the state court trial so fatally infected the trial that they violated the trial's fundamental fairness.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.