Nash v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. “We are not persuaded by the Ninth Circuit’s assertion that a habeas petitioner’s mental incompetency could “eviscerate the statutory right to counsel” in federal habeas proceedings. Given the backward-looking, record-based nature of most federal habeas proceedings, counsel can generally provide effective representation to a habeas petitioner regardless of the petitioner’s competence. Indeed, where a claim is “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) (2006 ed.), counsel should, in most circumstances, be able to identify whether the “adjudication ... 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,” § 2254(d)(1), without any evidence outside the record.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Connor v. Secretary · Seburt Nelson Connor v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

2. “[t]he need for rational communication here is particularly important because Nash has been assisted by several attorneys over the years.... The information that Nash possesses would provide first-hand insight into the earlier proceedings, insight that might be helpful in ways that Nash's current attorneys cannot currently identify because of his alleged incompetence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gonzales v. United States District Court · In Re Gonzales

3. “While an appeal is record-based, that does not mean that a habeas petitioner in a capital case is relegated to a nonexistent role.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Gonzales