Simmons v. Beard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a habeas petitioner’s claim was adjudicated on the merits in state court, the petition may not be granted unless the state court decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. Under the § 2254 standard, a district court is bound to presume that the state court’s factual findings are correct, with the burden on the petitioner to rebut those findings by clear and convincing evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clausell v. Sherrer · 354 F. App'x 650 - Strohl v. Grace

2. “reasonable probability of a different result.” However, we cannot credit this argument because it is clear that these two portions of the materiality standard are in fact synonymous. As the Supreme Court explained in Kyles,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Simmons v. Beard

3. “mixed question of law and fact” not subject to § 2254(e)(1). See Carter v. Rafferty, 826 F.2d 1299 , 1306 (3d Cir.1987) (stating, preAEDPA, that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Simmons v. Beard