Jones v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
496 F.3d 1216 · 2007
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 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 · Williams v. Taylor · Illinois v. Allen · Wheat v. United States · Brookhart v. Janis
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted 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 facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hall v. Thomas · Stephens v. Haley“Court: Do you want this woman to represent you? Jones: I want an effective— Court: Do you want this woman to represent you? Jones: I want an effective attorney. Court: Do you want this woman to represent you? Jones: No, sir.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jones v. Walker
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.