Vincent v. Seabold’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 2 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 24 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.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hill v. Hofbauer · Cress v. Palmer

2. “It is highly unlikely that the presumptive unreliability that attaches to accomplices’ confessions that shift or spread blame can be effectively rebutted when the statements are given under conditions that implicate the core concerns [of the abuses under old English law] — that is, when the government is involved in the statements’ production, and when the statements describe past events and have not been subjected to adversarial testing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 208 F. Supp. 2d 619 - United States v. Pineda

3. “whether the statement was sufficiently against the declarant's penal interest 'that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true,' and this question can only be answered in light of all the surrounding circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Alvarez