Romano v. Gibson’s Empirical Analysis
278 F.3d 1145 · 2002
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2264 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Estelle v. McGuire · Kimmelman v. Morrison · Roe, Warden v. Flores-Ortega
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a federal evidentiary hearing only in very limited circumstances where, among other requirements, the claim relies on `a new rule of constitutional law ...' or `a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hawkins v. Gibson“based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hawkins v. Gibson“contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hawkins v. Gibson
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.