Benn v. Lambert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

60 federal appellate · 4 district · 20 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 142 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rose v. Mayberg · Gill v. Ayers

2. “(d) An application for a 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 1 that was contrary to, 2 or involved an unreasonable application of, 3 clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; 4 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. 5 [I]n concluding that a state-court finding is unsupported by substantial evidence in the state-court record, it is not enough that we would reverse in similar circumstances if this were an appeal from a district court decision. Rather, we must be convinced that an appellate panel, applying the normal standards of appellate review, could not reasonably conclude that the finding is supported by the record.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Evans v. Budge · Horton II v. Mayle

3. “The laws of the State of Washington provide for certain Aggravating Circumstances which may be present during the commission of premeditated first degree murder. Included in these aggravating circumstances are: (1) There was more than one victim and the murders were part of a common scheme or plan or the result of a single act of the defendant. The presence of any aggravating circumstance must be proved by the state beyond a reasonable doubt. Where there is more than one aggravating circumstance alleged, the jury must be unanimous as to which circumstance was present. There may be more than one circumstance present.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 130 Wash. App. 308 - State v. Benn · State v. Benn