Doody v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
649 F.3d 986 · 2011
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Williams v. Taylor
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the core precepts of Miranda . Id. at 990 . Furthermore, the interviewing detective informed Doody that he had the right to counsel if he was involved in a crime--a clear misstatement of the right to counsel. These factors, taken as a whole, rendered the Miranda warnings in Doody constitutionally deficient. In contrast, only one of the factors in Doody is present here--the initial phrasing by Detective Harden that the Miranda warnings were”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(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.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Loher v. Thomas
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.