Nelson v. Quarterman’s Empirical Analysis
472 F.3d 287 · 2006
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1254 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · Gideon v. Wainwright · Kotteakos v. United States
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result”). 77 . See id. § 3(b)(2) (asking “whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society”). 78 . See id. § 3(b)(3) (asking,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Blue v. Thaler“misapplied the law as clearly established” before Abdul-Kabir’s 1990 trial when we denied his habeas corpus claim that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the trial judge’s instructions to the Texas jury that sentenced him to death prevented jurors from giving meaningful consideration to constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence.”). If the applicable constitutional law was”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Ex Parte Hood
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.