Harrison v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Delaware v. Van Arsdall
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.
“state-court decision that correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies it unreasonably to the facts of a particular prisoner's case certainly would qualify as a decision `involv[ing] an unreasonable application of ... clearly established Federal law.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harrison v. McBride“state(d) no facts in his brief ..., nor can we find any in the record, that indicate that there was an undisputed claim of prejudice or that the trial court expressed an opinion on the merits of the controversy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harrison v. McBride“standard, and (2) the Indiana Supreme Court's reference to the absence of prejudice in the trial record, juxtaposed with the proper federal standard of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harrison v. McBride
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.