Loggins v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
654 F.3d 1204 · 2011
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor · Teague v. Lane · Harmelin v. Michigan · Atkins v. Virginia
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n 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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[w]e have sidestepped that question before, see Grossman v. McDonough, 466 F.3d 1325 , 1341 n. 13 (11th Cir.2006), and we are content to do so again because the answer will not affect the result in this case.” Loggins, 654 F.3d at 1221 ; see also Greene, 132 S.Ct. at 44 n. * (concluding that Teague’s application to § 2254(d)(1)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Atkins and Roper both 'prohibit[ ] a certain category of punishment for a [certain] class of defendants because of their status or offense'; so too does Graham , which bars the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment without parole on a juvenile offender.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. People v. Rainer
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.