DAVISON v. STATE’s Empirical Analysis
2023
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Schlup v. Delo · Sawyer v. Whitley · STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. SWEET · DAVISON v. STATE
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.
“a. the application contains claims and issues that have not been and could not have been presented previously in a timely original application or in a previously considered application filed under this section, because the legal basis for the claim was unavailable, or b. (1) the application contains sufficient specific facts establishing that the current claims and issues have not and could not have been presented previously in a timely original application or in a previously considered application filed under this section, because the factual basis for the claim was unavailable as it was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before that date, and (2) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for the alleged error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense or would have rendered the penalty of death.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“For purposes of this act, a legal basis of a claim is unavailable on or before a date described by this subsection if the legal basis: a. was not recognized by or could not have been reasonably formulated from a final decision of the United States Supreme Court, a court of appeals of the United States, or a court of appellate jurisdiction of this state on or before that date, or b. is a new rule of constitutional law that was given retroactive effect by the United States Supreme Court or a court of appellate jurisdiction of this state and had not been announced on or before that date.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“at least six months before trial; and that trial counsel waited until the fifth day of trial to raise the issue of Petitioner's incompetency. Petitioner argues that trial counsel's presentation of the issue was deficient in failing to provide the correct notice to interested parties, offering only layperson observations of Petitioner's mental state, and omitting any expert opinion. Petitioner concludes that trial counsel deficiently failed to raise a doubt as to his competency”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.