Evans v. Ray’s Empirical Analysis
390 F.3d 1247 · 2004
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 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 Williams v. Taylor · Weaver v. Graham · Marks v. United States · Bouie v. City of Columbia · Calder et Wife, v. Bull et Wife.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although ex post facto principles are thus relevant to the retroactive application of judicial decisions through the due process clause of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment, the Ex Post Facto Clause is not incorporated wholesale or `jot-for-jot.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“`[D]ue process limitations on the retroactive application of judicial interpretations of criminal statutes' only apply to those decisions `that are unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in issue.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“unless the adjudication of the claim ... 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”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Grant v. Royal
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.