Henry v. Ricks’s Empirical Analysis
578 F.3d 134 · 2009
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Teague v. Lane · Davis v. United States · Great Northern Ry Co v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In light of the explicit guidance of the New York Court of Appeals [in Policano, 7 N.Y.3d at 597-600 , 825 N.Y.S.2d 678 , 859 N.E.2d 484 ], we recognized that Gonzalez and subsequent decisions of that court announced a change in New York law — not a clarification of it — and “did not reflect the applicable law for purposes” of a conviction affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals in 2001.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the Due Process Clause does not require the retroactive application of a new interpretation of a criminal statute by the New York Court of Appeals in our collateral review of a conviction.” Henry v. Rides, 578 F.3d 134 , 141 (2d Cir.2009). 5 . In most cases, of course, the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Epps v. Poole
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.