Taylor v. Medeiros’s Empirical Analysis
2019
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Griffin v. California · Estelle v. McGuire · United States v. Young
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“And not one witness in this case puts the defendant at Martha Laing's house, not one, not any of the witnesses [defense counsel] called. Marie Anderson doesn't say that. Martha Laing doesn't say that. And you know who else doesn't say that? The defendant doesn't say that.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Taylor v. Medeiros“a court should not infer that the jury will draw the most damaging meaning from an isolated remark after sitting through a lengthy trial and jury instructions,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Taylor v. Medeiros“much of the objectionable content was made in response to the opening argument of the defense,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Taylor v. Medeiros
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.