Rice v. White’s Empirical Analysis
660 F.3d 242 · 2011
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2241 (Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Hernandez v. New York
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it is not enough for the petitioner to show some unreasonable determination of fact; [additionally], the petitioner must show that the resulting state court decision was 'based on' that unreasonable determination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Carter v. Bogan · Stermer v. Warren“It is an open question whether 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1) ... applies in every case presenting a challenge under § 2254(d)(2).” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984, 1001 (9th Cir.2014) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Stermer v. Warren
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.