28 F. Supp. 2d 343 - Ramdass v. Angelone’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Coleman v. Thompson · Murray v. Carrier
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Id., at 166. 26 In this case, a Simmons instruction would not have been accurate under the law; for the authoritative determination of the Virginia Supreme Court is that petitioner was not ineligible for parole when the jury considered his sentence. In Simmons the defendant had”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ramdass v. Angelone“You must not concern yourself with matters that will occur after you impose your sentence, but you may impose [sic] that your sentence will be the legal sentence imposed in the case.”
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.