Crawford v. Head’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

53 federal appellate · 2 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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; 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 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Haliburton v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections · Michael v. Crosby

2. “both the district court's review and our review is greatly circumscribed and is highly deferential to the state courts”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. LeCroy v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections · Arthur v. Allen

3. “If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evi-dentiary hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that— (A) the claim relies on— (i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Williams v. Allen