Stanley v. Cullen’s Empirical Analysis
633 F.3d 852 · 2011
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
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 Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Stone v. Powell · Dusky v. United States · Pate v. Robinson
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 55 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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“objectively unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the state-court proceeding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“writ petition” was actually filed with that court on October 31, 2007. (See Resp’t’s Lod. Doc. 8.) . Under § 2254(d)(2), a state court decision based on a factual determination is not to be overturned on factual grounds unless it is”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jensen v. Hernandez
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.