Saxton v. Sheets’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Even if we were to conclude, after reviewing the record and drawing all inferences in favor of the prosecution, that [the petitioner’s] convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence, the question would remain whether the Ohio Court of Appeals was unreasonable in concluding otherwise. “State court findings of fact are to be presumed correct unless the petitioner rebuts the presumption with clear and convincing evidence.” Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371 , 376 (9th Cir.2002). A federal habeas court may not grant habeas relief “simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the state-court decision applied a Supreme Court case incorrectly.” Price v. Vincent, 538 U.S. 634 , 641, 123 S.Ct. 1848 , 155 L.Ed.2d 877 (2003) (internal brackets omitted). It must further conclude that the state-court decision was objectively unreasonable. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 , 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brown v. Konteh

2. “Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction and such evidence need not remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Matthews v. Jackson

3. “A conviction may be sustained based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Matthews v. Jackson