Wood v. Ercole’s Empirical Analysis
644 F.3d 83 · 2011
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Kotteakos v. United States · Edwards v. Arizona · Wainwright v. Sykes
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'unreasonable application of [clearly established federal law]' standard does not survive Fry.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Gongora v. Thaler“heavy reliance ... expose[s] its central role in persuading the jury to convict,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“clearly understood that [the silver platter] statement was a powerful weapon”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.