Musladin v. Lamarque’s Empirical Analysis
555 F.3d 830 · 2009
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably United States v. Benford (2009), Janosky v. St. Amand (2010)
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Gideon v. Wainwright · Kotteakos v. United States · Penson v. Ohio
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We review the district court's denial of [a] § 2254 habeas corpus petition de novo.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tamplin v. Muniz · Kayer v. Ryan“AEDPA does not `require state and federal courts to wait for some nearly identical factual pattern before a legal rule must be applied.' Nor does AEDPA prohibit a federal court from finding an application of a principle unreasonable when it involves a set of facts `different from those of the case in which the principle was announced.' The statute recognizes, to the contrary, that even a general standard may be applied in an unreasonable manner.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.