Amos v. Thornton’s Empirical Analysis
646 F.3d 199 · 2011
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Barker v. Wingo · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade · Doggett v. United States · William O'sullivan v. Darren Boerckel
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.
“Under § 2254(d), a [federal] habeas court must determine what arguments or theories supported or, as here, could have supported, the state court’s decision; and then it must ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a prior decision of this Court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. French v. Carter“attaches at the time of arrest or indictment, whichever comes first”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Wright
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.