Stanley v. Schriro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Once the scene is set and the players’ lines and actions are reconstructed, the court must apply an objective test to resolve the ultimate inquiry: was there a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Redlightning · United States v. Basher

2. “(1) resulted in a decision that 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) resulted in a decision that 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
   e.g. James v. Schriro · James v. Ryan

3. “[federal habeas relief may not be granted for claims subject to § 2254(d) unless it is shown that the earlier state court’s decision “was contrary to” federal law then clearly established in the holdings of [the Supreme Court]; or that it “involved an unreasonable application of’ such law; or that it “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts” in light of the record before the state court.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cannedy v. Adams · Djerf v. Ryan