Jones v. Prison’s Empirical Analysis
591 F.3d 707 · 2010
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Coleman v. Thompson · Picard v. Connor · Missouri v. Hunter · William O'sullivan v. Darren Boerckel
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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; 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 majoritye.g. Williams v. Stirling“shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Stirling
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.