Neelley v. Nagle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(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.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 139 F. Supp. 2d 1393 - Chu Young Yi v. Gearinger · 74 F. Supp. 2d 1226 - Breedlove v. Moore

2. “(d) 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 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 dissent
   e.g. McIntyre v. Williams · 53 F. Supp. 2d 1285 - Putman v. Turpin

3. “[A] court evaluating a habeas petition under § 2254(d)(1) must engage in a three-step process: First, the court must “survey the legal landscape,” ..., to ascertain the federal law applicable to the petition-ei"’s claim that is “clearly established” by the Supreme Court at the time of the state court’s adjudication. Second, the court must determine whether the state court adjudication was contrary to the clearly established Supreme Court case law, either because the state court failed to apply the proper Supreme Court precedent, or because the state court reached a different conclusion based on substantially similar facts. If the state court’s decision is not contrary to law, the reviewing court must then determine whether the state court unreasonably applied the relevant Supreme Court authority. The state court decision must stand unless it is not debatable among reasonable jurists that the result of which the petitioner complains is incorrect.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 53 F. Supp. 2d 1285 - Putman v. Turpin · 8 F. Supp. 2d 1383 - Fugate v. Turpin