Greene v. Palakovich’s Empirical Analysis
606 F.3d 85 · 2010
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Crawford v. Washington · Gideon v. Wainwright · Bruton 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(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.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Question]: Would you go on in your own words and tell us what happened the night Francisco Azcona was killed? [Answer]: We were riding around in this, this guy’s car, me and three other guys were in ... north Philadelphia.... when one said let’s get paid. Everyone said okay and we saw this store. So me and two guys went in the store. When we got inside two guys stayed up front and I stayed to the back. One guy had his gun on the guy and was at the cash register.... [g]etting the money. But it wouldn’t [open]. I heard a shot and looked over. Blood was coming out of the guy’s mouth. After that someone grabbed the register and we all ran out. [Question]: Where did you go? [Answer]: We ran to the car and went back up [to] Germantown. We went to someone’s house. It’s an apartment. And two guys got screwdrivers and opened up the register. [Answer]: We split [the stolen money] up even.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A state-court decision “involve[s] an unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if the state court (1) “identifies the correct governing legal rule from [the Supreme] Court’s cases but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular ... case”; or (2) “unreasonably extends a legal principle from [Supreme Court] precedent to a new context where it should not apply or unreasonably refuses to extend that principle to a new context where it should apply.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Munchinski v. Wilson
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.