Arredondo v. Ortiz’s Empirical Analysis
365 F.3d 778 · 2004
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Kotteakos v. United States · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Teague v. Lane
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gautt v. Lewis · Chein v. Shumsky“[A]t a minimum Teague should be identified as an issue (indeed, the first issue). . ., the new rule of constitutional law that falls within its proscription should be articulated, the reasons why such a rule would not have been compelled by existing precedent should be explained with particular reference to the appropriate universe of precedent, and an argument should be made why the rule contended for is not within one of Teague 's exceptions.”
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.