Sixta v. Thaler’s Empirical Analysis
615 F.3d 569 · 2010
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 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 Slack v. McDaniel · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Lackey v. Johnson · United States v. Thames · United States v. Perez-Macias
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Ross v. Williams“govern a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in a United States district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Ross v. Williams“to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these rules.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Ross v. Williams
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.