Davis v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
506 F.3d 1325 · 2007
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 144 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 455
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Williams v. Taylor · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Tumey v. State of Ohio · In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(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 based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the federal recusal statute * * * [does] not govern state judges”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.