Williams v. Cavazos’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate ·

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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (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
   e.g. Ayala v. Wong · Ayala v. Wong

2. “If at any time, whether before or after the final submission of the case to the jury, a juror dies or becomes ill, or upon other good cause shown to the court is found to be unable to perform his or her duty, or if a juror requests a discharge and good cause appears therefor, the court may order the juror to be discharged and draw the name of an alternate, who shall then take a place in the jury box, and be subject to the same rules and regulations as though the alternate juror had been selected as one of the original jurors.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Bell v. Uribe · Bell v. Uribe

3. “indication” that the court either overlooked or disregarded her Sixth Amendment claim entirely, rather than that it adjudicated the claim but offered no explanation at all for its decision. Williams v. Cavazos, 646 F.3d 626 , 639 (9th Cir.2011). The majority appears to follow a similar course in the case at bar. 10 . The Supreme Court specifically noted that”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ayala v. Wong · Ayala v. Wong