Ruelas v. Wolfenbarger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 federal appellate ·

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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Brecht is always the test, and there is no reason to ask both whether the state court 'unreasonably' applied Chapman under the AEDPA and, further, whether the constitutional error had a 'substantial and injurious' effect on the jury’s verdict.”); Bond v. Beard, 539 F.3d 256, 275-76 (3d Cir. 2008) (”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wood v. Ercole · Hammonds v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections

2. “(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) 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.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fields v. Howes

3. “(1) 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; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based upon an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 471 F. App'x 437 - Eric Cook v. Keith Smith