White v. Wheeler’s Empirical Analysis
577 U.S. 73 · 2015
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · Harrington v. Richter · McNeill v. United States · Harrington v. Richter
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This Court, time and again, has instructed that AEDPA, by setting forth necessary predicates before state-court judgments may be set aside, erects a formidable barrier to federal habeas relief for prisoners whose claims have been adjudicated in state court.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... did not properly apply the deference it was required to accord the state-court ruling. A fairminded jurist could readily conclude that the trial judge's exchange with Juror 638 reflected a "diligent and thoughtful voir dire "; that she considered with care the juror's testimony; and that she was fair in the exercise of her "broad discretion" in determining whether the juror was qualified to serve in this capital case. Uttecht , 551 U.S. at 20 , 127 S.Ct. 2218 . Juror 638's answers during voir dire were at least as ambiguous as to whether he would be able to give appropriate consideration to imposing the death penalty. And as this Court made clear in Uttecht , "when there is ambiguity in the prospective juror's statements," the trial court is " 'entitled to resolve it in favor of the State.' " Id. , at 7, 127 S.Ct. 2218 (quoting [ Wainwright v. Witt , 469 U.S. at 434 ] 105 S.Ct. 844 ).”
2 later decisions 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.