Washington v. Crosby’s Empirical Analysis
324 F.3d 1263 · 2003
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Brecht v. Abrahamson · National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Textron Financial Corp. · Isaacs v. Head · Bottoson v. Moore
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In applying the “contrary to” prong of AEDPA, we have recognized that where no Supreme Court precedent is on point, “we cannot say that the state court’s conclusion ... is contrary to clearly established Federal law as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.” McIntyre v. Williams, 216 F.3d 1254 , 1258 (11th Cir.2000).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen no Supreme Court precedent is on point, ... a state court's conclusion cannot be 'contrary to clearly established Federal law’ ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.