Williams v. Rhoades’s Empirical Analysis
354 F.3d 1101 · 2004
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 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 Batson v. Kentucky · Hernandez v. New York · Purkett v. Elem · Ylst v. Nunnemaker · 22 Cal. 3d 258 - People v. Wheeler
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial court must not simply accept the proffered reasons at face value; it has a duty to “evaluate meaningfully the persuasiveness of the prosecutor’s [raee]-neutral explanation ]” to discern whether it is a mere pretext for discrimination. United States v. Alanis, 335 F.3d 965 , 969 (9th Cir.2003).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mitleider v. Hall“contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mitleider v. Hall“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 majoritye.g. Mitleider v. Hall
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.