Evans v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 23 district · 3 state decisions

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

1. “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....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Likely v. Ruane · 57 F. Supp. 3d 81 - Cavitt v. Saba

2. “Nothing in the AEDPA subjugates the Constitution to state law. As the Supreme Court has often noted, the state courts, as co-equal guardians of federal constitutional rights, are perfectly capable of passing on federal constitutional questions. And under the Supremacy Clause, state courts are obligated to enforce the Constitution above state law to the contrary. Nothing in the AEDPA changes this rule of law. The AEDPA does, to be sure, require that federal courts give deference to the federal constitutional decisions of the state courts. This, however, does not offend the Supremacy Clause, which “is concerned with promoting the supremacy of federal law, not federal courts.” In short, the AEDPA standard of review does not violate the Supremacy Clause because that Clause “is concerned about a conflict between state and federal law, not between state and federal judges. Indeed, to say, as the Clause does, that federal law shall be ‘Supreme ... any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding’ is to say nothing at all about the respective roles of the state and federal courts.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Desai v. Booker

3. “For habeas purposes, where state law is explicitly more favorable to defendants than the federal standard, we will presume the federal law adjudication to be subsumed within the state law adjudication.”) (quotation omitted). 4 . During the five-day trial, the state presented evidence that the bullet came from the type of gun Gomes described using; Gomes’s finger prints were found at the crime scene; Gomes told a police officer that he”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Gomes v. Brady