Cagle v. Branker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “[AEDPA] governs a federal habeas court’s review of a state prisoner’s claims that were adjudicated on the merits in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).... Two provisions of the AEDPA deal with factual determinations of state courts. Relief is warranted under § 2254(d)(2) if the state court’s “adjudication of the claim ... 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.” The second provision, § 2254(e)(1), provides that a state court’s factual findings are presumed to be correct, unless the petitioner rebuts them with clear and convincing evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 732 F. Supp. 2d 527 - Merzbacher v. Shearin

2. “for a federal habeas court to overturn a state court’s credibility judgments, the state court’s error must be stark and clear. Indeed, “federal habeas courts [have] no license to redetermine credibility of witnesses whose demeanor has been observed by the state trial court, but not by them.” Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 434 , 103 S.Ct. 843 , 74 L.Ed.2d 646 (1983).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 337 F. App'x 316 - McLeod v. Peguese