Scarbrough v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
300 F.3d 302 · 2002
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Bell Warden v. Cone · Werts v. Vaughn · Commonwealth v. Robinson
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under AEDPA, when a federal court reviews a state court's ruling on federal law, or its application of federal law to a particular set of facts, the state court's decision must stand unless it is `contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hardcastle v. Horn“d[id] not hold an evidentiary hearing and engage in independent fact-finding, but rather limit[ed] the habeas evidence to that found in the state court record,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hardcastle v. Horn
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.