Wooten v. Thaler’s Empirical Analysis
598 F.3d 215 · 2010
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Mooney v. Holohan · Gardner v. Florida · Weatherford v. Bursey
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) ... 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) ... was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). A state court's decision is contrary to clearly established precedent if the rule it applies”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hebert v. Rogers“contradicts the governing law set forth in the [Supreme Court's] cases,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hebert v. Rogers
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.