Rhoades v. Henry’s Empirical Analysis
598 F.3d 511 · 2010
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Slack v. McDaniel · North Carolina v. Alford · Teague v. Lane · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a plea may be accepted for which there is a factual basis even though the defendant asserts his innocence” (citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970))). 5 . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) simply states:”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“strong presumption that a judge is not biased or prejudiced.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sivak v. Hardison
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.