Dolphy v. Mantello’s Empirical Analysis
552 F.3d 236 · 2009
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Wilson v. Mazzuca (2009), People v. Williams (2013)
7 federal appellate · 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Jordan v. Lefevre · Galarza v. Keane · Jenkins v. Artuz · Messiah v. Duncan
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the state court has adjudicated the merits of the petitioner’s claim, we apply the deferential standard of review established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), under which we may grant a writ of habeas corpus only if the state court’s adjudication ‘was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Portalatin v. Graham
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.