Ho v. Carey’s Empirical Analysis
332 F.3d 587 · 2003
Citation profile
31
cited by 31 later decisions
2
states following
June 2018
most recently cited
9 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Estelle v. McGuire · 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 31 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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Mattix v. Morrow“standard employed for ambiguous jury instructions when the disputed instruction is erroneous on its face.' ( Ho v. Carey, 332 F.3d 587 , 592 (9th Cir. 2003) ; accord, e.g., Wade v. Calderon , 29 F.3d 1312 , 1321 (9th Cir. 1994) ; Murtishaw v. Woodford , 255 F.3d 926 , 967-968 (9th Cir. 2001) ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In each of the crimes charged ... there must exist a certain mental state in the mind of the perpetrator. Unless such mental state exists, the crime to which it relates is not committed. 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
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.