Gomes v. Brady’s Empirical Analysis
564 F.3d 532 · 2009
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth' by the Supreme Court or 'confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme Court] and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [its] precedent.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth' by the Supreme Court or 'confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme Court] and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [its] precedent.' " Gomes v. Brady , 564 F.3d 532 , 537 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362 , 405-06, 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) ) (alteration in original). A state court unreasonably applies federal law when it "correctly identifies the governing legal principles, but (i) applies those principles to the facts of the case in an objectively unreasonable manner; (ii) unreasonably extends clearly established legal principles to a new context where they should not apply; or (iii) unreasonably refuses to extend established principles to a new context where they should apply.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Faulk v. Medeiros
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.