Rastafari v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
278 F.3d 673 · 2002
Citation profile
16 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Lindh v. Murphy · Washington v. Texas · Lockhart v. Fretwell
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.
“the evidence Williams argues should have been presented [at trial] would not have significantly changed the facts available to the judge and jurors” was an unreasonable determination of the facts. See id. at § 2254(d)(2). However, Williams has not identified a set of facts that competent counsel could have adduced that was significantly different from the facts presented at trial, as discussed below, and therefore, we reject this claim. Further, Williams claims that the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision was”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Davis“a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.