Colvin v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
324 F.3d 583 · 2003
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably United States v. Lovelace (2009), United States v. Munoz (2005)
20 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Santobello v. New York · Bell Warden v. Cone · United States v. Peter A. Crusco and Phillip A. Cimmino. Appeal of Phillip Cimmino · United States v. Canada
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(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.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“this court, just like the district court, may not grant a writ of habeas corpus unless the relevant state court decision is both wrong and unreasonable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“As an officer of the court, the prosecutor had the duty to convey to the court facts about the case and the defendant as long as the specific terms of the plea agreement were not violated.” (relying on this court's reasoning in United States v. Block, 660 F.2d 1086 , 1091 (5th Cir. Unit B. Nov.1981))). 30 . See Block, 660 F.2d at 1092-92 . 31 . The AUSA stated that he wanted to”
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.