Gruning v. Dipaolo’s Empirical Analysis
311 F.3d 69 · 2002
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Moran v. Burbine · Culombe v. Connecticut · Colorado v. Spring · United States v. Ruiz
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pandolfi v. Wall“AEDPA imposes a requirement of deference to state court decisions, but we can hardly defer to the state court on an issue that the state court did not address.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pandolfi v. Wall“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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pandolfi v. Wall
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.