Castillo v. McFadden’s Empirical Analysis
399 F.3d 993 · 2004
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · William O'sullivan v. Darren Boerckel
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.
“[c]itation of irrelevant federal cases does not provide a state court with a fair opportunity to apply controlling legal principles to the facts bearing upon his constitutional claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fields v. Waddington“general appeals to broad constitutional principles, such as due process, equal protection, and the right to a fair trial, are insufficient to establish exhaustion”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fields v. Waddington“The Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from depriving persons of due process by the several States.”
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.