Leftwich v. Maloney’s Empirical Analysis
532 F.3d 20 · 2008
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably United States v. Correa-Osorio (2015), O'Laughlin v. O'Brien (2009)
16 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
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 Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · United States v. Zannino · Griffin v. United States · Commonwealth v. Latimore
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a state-court adjudication of an issue framed in terms of state law may receive section 2254(d)(1) deference so long as the state standard is at least as protective of the defendant's rights as its federal counterpart.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“'Unreasonable' in this context means that the decision 'evinces some increment of incorrectness beyond mere error.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“In conducting a sufficiency analysis, however, some degree of intellectual rigor is required; a reviewing court should not give credence to 'evidentiary interpretations and illations that are unreasonable, insupportable, or overly speculative.' " Leftwich v. Maloney , 532 F.3d 20 , 23 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Spinney , 65 F.3d 231 , 234 (1st Cir. 1995) ); see also United States v. Valerio , 48 F.3d 58 , 64 (1st Cir. 1995) ("[W]e are loath to stack inference upon inference in order to uphold the jury's verdict.”
3 later decisions 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.