Dorchy v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions

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

1. “Under most circumstances, however, newly promulgated rules of criminal procedure do not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 305-11, 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 ... (1989) (holding that a habeas petitioner could not benefit from a recent Supreme Court decision declaring racially-based peremptory challenges invalid, because that decision could not be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review) .... Teague thus prohibits [petitioner] from availing himself of the new rule articulated in Crawford. The question before us is therefore whether the analysis by the [state court] was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, Roberts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fulcher v. Motley

2. “Under most circumstances, however, newly promulgated rules of criminal procedure do not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.. . . Teague thus prohibits Dorchy from availing himself of the new rule articulated in Crawford.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Drach v. Bruce