Johnson v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
568 U.S. 289 · 2013
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Michigan v. Long · Harris v. Reed · Ylst v. Nunnemaker
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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must presume that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“federal courts have no authority to impose mandatory opinion-writing standards on state courts.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“was based on 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 majoritye.g. Dassey v. Dittmann · Busby v. Davis
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.