Jones v. Polk’s Empirical Analysis
401 F.3d 257 · 2005
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Townsend v. Sain · Brecht v. Abrahamson
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We do not require direct factual support for each allegation a petitioner wishes to prove at a hearing. Rather, we hold only that to obtain an evidentiary hearing, the petitioner must rely on more than merely plausible inferences that there is a factual basis for his claim for relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Green v. Johnson“an instrument to test the truth of facts already alleged in the habeas petition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Lenz v. Washington“any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lenz v. Washington
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.