Souch v. Schaivo’s Empirical Analysis
289 F.3d 616 · 2002
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 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)
Relies on Anders v. California · North Carolina v. Alford · Dobbert v. Florida · Collins v. Youngblood · Miller v. Florida
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is aimed at laws that retroactively alter the definition of crimes or increase the punishment for criminal acts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Himes v. Thompson“No State shall ... pass any ... ex post facto Law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Himes v. Thompson
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.