Liggins v. Burger’s Empirical Analysis
422 F.3d 642 · 2005
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Brady v. State of Maryland · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · United States v. Bagley · Kyles v. Whitley
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.
“was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Evenstad v. Carlson“correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies it unreasonably to the facts of a particular prisoner's case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Evenstad v. Carlson“was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Evenstad v. Carlson
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.