48 F. Supp. 2d 979 - Williams v. Calderon’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Olano
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[b]y the time of trial, the psychologically coercive atmosphere of that interrogation must surely have dissipated. There [was] no indication that [the witness] was told at any time by anyone what he should say on the witness stand.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Woodford“reasonable probability that, had [the 1979 tape recording] been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceedings would have been different,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Woodford“did not receive a full, fair, and adequate hearing in the State court proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Woodford
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.