In re Webster’s Empirical Analysis
605 F.3d 256 · 2010
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Atkins v. Virginia · Sawyer v. Whitley · McGee v. County of Orange · Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal · Castro v. United States
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that a petitioner cannot bring a successive claim” under subsection (B)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cathey v. Davis · In re Davila“[a] second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain ... newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Hill“subsection (B) requires the habeas applicant to show that 'no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense ,' not that no reasonable factfinder would have imposed the same sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thompson v. Davis
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.