Buxton v. Lynaugh’s Empirical Analysis
879 F.2d 140 · 1989
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2011 · most notably State v. Calhoun (1999), Dennis Thurl Dowthitt v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (2000)
21 federal appellate · 5 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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Sumner v. Mata · Penry v. Lynaugh · Enmund v. Florida · McCleskey v. Kemp
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in a different and better position to make determinations regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding that trial than other courts on direct or collateral review.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n any proceeding instituted in a Federal court by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue, made by a State court of competent jurisdiction in a proceeding to which the applicant for the writ and the State or an officer or agent thereof were parties, evidenced by a written finding, written opinion, or other reliable and adequate written indicia, shall be presumed to be correct....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Micheaux v. Collins“Strickland allows the habeas court to look at either prong first; if either one is found dispositive, it is not necessary to address the other.”
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.