Christian v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis
595 F.3d 1076 · 2010
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Chambers v. Mississippi · Lindh v. Murphy · Ylst v. Nunnemaker · Woodford v. Visciotti
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Moreover, Chambers can be further distinguished from the case before us in that, here, ... [the declarant] was declared to be unavailable. His unavailability contrasts sharply with the availability of McDonald in Chambers , which the Supreme Court of the United States stressed greatly enhanced the reliability of the extrajudicial statements in that case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Austin“was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Doe v. Busby“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. Doe v. Busby
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.