Martinez v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
881 F.2d 921 · 1989
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably McCandless v. Vaughn (1999), Drew v. Department of Corrections (2002)
33 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 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 · Chapman v. State of California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Bruton v. United States · Delaware v. Van Arsdall
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The admissibility of spontaneous utterances-one ground relied on by the state trial court-was recognized by the Supreme Court over a century ago in Insurance Co. v. Mosley , 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 397, 406-07 , 19 L.Ed. 437 (1869).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[W]hile the presumption of correctness applies to the basic, primary or historical facts, the ultimate issue of unavailability for purposes of the Confrontation Clause is a mixed question of fact and law, reviewable de novo.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. McCandless v. Vaughn“[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.