Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 322 F.3d 625 - Ho v. Newland

Ho v. Newland’s Empirical Analysis

322 F.3d 625 · 2003

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
June 2003
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Brecht v. Abrahamson · Estelle v. McGuire · Neder v. United States · Sandstrom v. Montana · Cupp v. Naughten

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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “), which affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion. Ho's application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied by the Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. Ho then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the Northern District of California in which he asserted six federal constitutional claims. The district court denied Ho's petition. It issued a certificate of appealability (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In the crime charged, murder in the second degree based on implied malice, this instruction applies.[¶] There must exist a union or joint operation of act or conduct and general intent..... [¶] That applies only to murder in the second degree based on the theory of implied malice, and I'll write that down in the form for you. [¶] ... [¶] In the crime of murder in the second degree, the necessary mental state is malice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (2002). A request for federal habeas corpus relief must be based on a violation of federal law. Id. § 2254(d). We review de novo a district court's decision to deny a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Williams v. Woodford, 306 F.3d 665 , 684 (9th Cir.2002). 23 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 110 Stat. § 1214 (1996) (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.