Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 592 F.3d 45 - Clements v. Clarke

Clements v. Clarke’s Empirical Analysis

592 F.3d 45 · 2010

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
January 2025
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 17 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson · Irvin v. Dowd · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade · Yarborough v. Alvarado

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

  1. “(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.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “AEDPA’s trigger for deferential review is adjudication, not explanation. When a state court has truly avoided (or merely overlooked) the petitioner’s federal claim, a federal court may step into the breach and review de novo. But judicial opacity is a far cry from judicial avoidance. It is the result to which we owe deference, not the opinion expounding it.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “In contrast, a state court decision that does not address the federal claim on the merits falls beyond the ambit of AEDPA. When presented with such unadjudicated claims, the habeas court reviews them de novo.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.