Michael v. Crosby’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate ·

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

1. “We have explained that an unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law. Indeed, a federal habeas court may hot issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must be objectively unreasonable. This distinction creates a substantially higher threshold for obtaining relief than de novo review. AED-PA thus imposes a highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings and demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Butts v. GDCP Warden

2. ““[Cjounsel will not be deemed unconstitutionally deficient because of tactical decisions.” There is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable and adequate, with great deference being shown to choices dictated by reasonable strategy. “The presumption of reasonableness is even stronger when we are reviewing the performance of an experienced trial counsel.” To overcome this presumption, the petitioner “must establish that no competent counsel would have taken the action that his counseldid take.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Smith

3. “Under § 2254(d)(1), “[a] state court’s decision is 'contrary to’ ... clearly established law if it ‘applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the United States Supreme Court’s] cases’ or if it ‘confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the United States Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrives at a [different] result....’””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Butts v. GDCP Warden