Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 556 F.3d 995 - DeWeaver v. Runnels

DeWeaver v. Runnels’s Empirical Analysis

556 F.3d 995 · 2009

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
2
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably State v. Morrisey (2009), Doody v. Ryan (2011)

8 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

220200920102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Williams v. Taylor · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Berkemer v. McCarty · Allen v. United States

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.

  1. “[B]ecause [Doody] filed his habeas petition after the effective date of the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), we must deny the petition unless the state court’s adjudication of [Doody’s] claims resulted in a decision that was either (1) contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, or (2) based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “extends or fails to extend a clearly established legal principle to a new context in a way that is objectively unreasonable”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.”
    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.