Faye Copeland James Washington Faye Copeland James Washington’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 4 district · 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(d) An application for 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.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 213 F. Supp. 2d 1026 - King v. Bowersox · David Gary v. Dave Dormire

2. “at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 579 F. Supp. 2d 1246 - Cole v. Roper · James Koste v. Dave Dormire

3. “). Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority, explained that: 1 § 2254(d)(1) places a new constraint on the power of a federal habeas court to grant a state prisoner's application for a writ of habeas corpus with respect to claims adjudicated on the merits in state court. Under § 2254(d)(1), the writ may issue only if one of the following two conditions is satisfied -- the state-court adjudication resulted in a decision that (1)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. James Koste v. Dave Dormire