Chadwick v. Janecka’s Empirical Analysis
302 F.3d 107 · 2002
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Younger v. Harris · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc · Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization
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.
“While it is necessary for the state court to have adjudicated the claim on the merits, it is not necessary for the state court to have thoroughly explained its analysis in its opinion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wright v. Vaughn
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.