131 S. Ct. 13 - Wilson v. Corcoran’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
reviewedCorcoran v. Buss (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Estelle v. McGuire · Zant v. Stephens · Lewis v. Jeffers · Wainwright v. Goode · Corcoran v. State
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) ... 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) ... 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 majoritye.g. Werth v. Bell · Jensen v. Hernandez“[f]ederal courts may not issue writs of habeas corpus to state prisoners whose confinement does not violate federal law.” Id. at 14 . In particular, the Court held that a federal court's review of a state court's factual determinations under § 2254(d)(2) is cabined by the limitations imposed by § 2254(a) — viz., the former provision”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is not enough to note that a habeas petitioner asserts the existence of a constitutional violation; unless the federal court agrees with that assertion, it may not grant relief.”).”
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.