Mason v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis
605 F.3d 1114 · 2010
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Williams v. Taylor · Crawford v. Washington · Wainwright v. Sykes · Delaware v. Van Arsdall
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under AEDPA, a federal court may not grant a habeas corpus application “with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), unless the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” § 2254(d)(1), or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” § 2254(d)(2).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson v. Upton“one full opportunity to resolve [his claim] by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process.” See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 ; 845, 119 S.Ct. 1728 , 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999). In so doing, the petitioner must”
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.