Staley v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

239 F.3d 769 · 2001

Citation profile

cited by 49 later decisions

states following

October 2018

most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes

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

“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 majority
e.g. Ritchie v. Rogers · Delrico Robertson v. Phillip Kerns
“First, a state-court decision is contrary to this .Court’s precedent if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this Court on a question of law. Second, a state-court decision is also contrary to this Court’s precedent if the state court confronts facts that are materially indistinguishable from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrives at a result opposite to ours.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Ritchie v. Rogers · Coburn v. Howes
“to prevent the chilling of future protected expression.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
e.g. Lamar Advantage GP Co. v. City of Cincinnati · Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

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.