Losh v. Fabian’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “on one of two grounds under the “contrary to” clause of § 2254(d)(1): “if the state court arrive[d] at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law” or if it “decide[d] a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 , 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).[His] petition could be granted under the “unreasonable application” clause only if the state court applied the correct governing legal principle in an objectively unreasonably manner. Id. at 409, 413 , 529 U.S. 362 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 . Only rulings in Supreme Court decisions issued before the state court acts are considered clearly established federal law, id. at 412 , 529 U.S. 362 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 , for a state court does not act contrary to or unreasonably apply clearly established federal law if there is no controlling Supreme Court holding on the point, see Evenstad v. Carlson, 470 F.3d 777 , 784 (8th Cir. 2006).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. O'Meara v. Feneis