Sweeney v. Parke’s Empirical Analysis
113 F.3d 716 · 1997
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Sandin v. Conner · Superintendent Massachusetts Correctional Institution Walpole v. Hill · Breast Implant Tort Represented By O'Quinn v. Dow Corning Corp. · Lindh v. Murphy
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a.State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in the State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An inmate’s day-of-hearing request to call witnesses may be a delay tactic (especially if the request to call witnesses is accompanied by a request for a continuance); it may raise the level of confrontation between the prison staff and the inmate and thereby undermine prison officials’ authority; and it may disrupt the institution’s disciplinary process and hinder its rehabilitative function. These risks are inherent in day-of-hearing requests, and prison officials are justified in summarily denying such requests.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Umar v. Johnson · Evans v. Allen“criterion for assessing the reasonableness of a state court's application of Supreme Court case law, pursuant to sec. 2254(d)(1), is whether the determination is at least minimally consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2 later decisions 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.