Fields v. Thaler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “Although a lack of fair support in the record was sufficient to rebut a presumptively correct factual finding under pre-AEDPA law, the AEDPA increased the level of deference due to a state court’s factual findings.... The Third Circuit has held that “[sjilence in the record is insufficient to overcome” the § 2254(e)(1) presumption of correctness .... [T]here is currently a split among the circuits regarding the applicability of § 2254(d)(2) and § 2254(e)(1). In Miller-El I, the Supreme Court held that it was incorrect for this court “to merge the independent requirements of § 2254(d)(2) and (e)(1).” 537 U.S. at 341 , 123 S.Ct. 1029 . The clear and convincing evidence standard is found in § 2254(e)(1), but that subsection pertains only to state-court determinations of factual issues, rather than decisions. In Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 339 , 126 S.Ct. 969 , 163 L.Ed.2d 824 (2006), the Court noted that the parties disagreed about whether and when the § 2254(e)(1) presumption was applicable during a § 2254(d)(2) review, but declined to resolve the disagreement. In a case decided prior to Miller-El I, this court described the two provisions in a manner very similar to the Supreme Court’s description in Miller-El I: Whereas § 2254(d)(2) sets out a general standard by which the district court evaluates a state court’s specific findings of fact, § 2254(e)(1) states what an applicant will have to show for the district court to reject a state court’s determination of factual issue”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 732 F. Supp. 2d 527 - Merzbacher v. Shearin

2. “[AEDPA] governs a federal habeas court’s review of a state prisoner’s claims that were adjudicated on the merits in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).... Two provisions of the AEDPA deal with factual determinations of state courts. Relief is warranted under § 2254(d)(2) if the state court’s “adjudication of the claim ... resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” The second provision, § 2254(e)(1), provides that a state court’s factual findings are presumed to be correct, unless the petitioner rebuts them with clear and convincing evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 732 F. Supp. 2d 527 - Merzbacher v. Shearin

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 on 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. Jones v. Cain