Self v. Milyard’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Erickson v. Pardus · Stone v. Powell · Cullen v. Pinholster
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While we arrive at that conclusion through a somewhat different path than that employed by the district court, we find that reasonable jurists could not disagree with the district court’s ultimate resolution in dismissing the petition.”). 10 . Mr. Sue argues that, because the state courts denied his later post-conviction motions—at least in part—as improper successive requests for relief, there has been no adjudication on the merits, and thus no basis to subject the state court decisions to AEDPA deference. See, e.g., Pet’r’s Br. at 14-15 (arguing that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sue v. Kline“so long as we are confident in the correctness of the district court’s ultimate resolution of his habeas claims”); see also Brown v. Roberts, 501 Fed.Appx. 825, 830 (10th Cir. 2012) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Porter v. Allbaugh
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.