Cordova v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 2011
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 18 U.S.C. § 3592 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Estelle v. McGuire · Lockett v. Ohio · Lindh v. Murphy · Eddings v. Oklahoma
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This 'reasonable likelihood' standard does not require the petitioner to prove that the jury 'more likely than not' interpreted the challenged instruction in an impermissible way; however, the petitioner must demonstrate more than 'only a possibility' of an impermissible interpretation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“may not answer any [special] issue 'no' unless 10 or more jurors agree.”
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.