Janosky v. St. Amand’s Empirical Analysis
594 F.3d 39 · 2010
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 17 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson · Murray v. Carrier · Picard v. Connor
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“White v. Coplan, 399 F.3d 18, 23 (1st cir. 2005). 6 federal law if the state court employs a rule that contradicts an existing Supreme Court precedent or it if reaches a different result on facts materially indistinguishable from those of the controlling Supreme Court precedent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A state-court decision constitutes an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law if it identifies the correct rule, but applies that rule unreasonably to the facts of the case sub judice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When . . . counsel's decision to elicit potentially damaging testimony is part of a plausible trial strategy, that decision does not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness.”
1 later decision 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.