Nunes v. Mueller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 federal appellate ·

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

1. “may affirm the district court's decision on any ground supported by the record, even if it differs from the district court's rationale.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Buckley v. Ca Terhune Cdc · Collier v. Bayer

2. “shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim — (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. " 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1), (2) (emphasis added). Additionally, § 2254(e)(1) states: "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Buckley v. Ca Terhune Cdc

3. “[f]ederal habeas corpus practice, as reflected by the decisions of this Court, indicates that a court has broad discretion in conditioning a judgment granting habeas relief. Federal courts are authorized, under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, to dispose of habeas corpus matters `as law and justice require.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Riggs v. Jw Fairman