Lyons v. Brady’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 8 district ·

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 11 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&emdash; (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 majority
   e.g. 953 F. Supp. 2d 274 - Cormier v. Saba · 29 F. Supp. 3d 65 - Nazario-Baez v. Batista

2. “[a]n erroneous evidentiary ruling that results in a fundamentally unfair trial may constitute a due process violation and thus provide a basis for habeas relief. However, to give rise to habeas relief, the state court’s application of state law must be so arbitrary or capricious as to constitute an independent due process violation. To be a constitutional violation, a state evidentiary error must so infuse the trial with inflammatory prejudice that it renders a fair trial impossible.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jaynes v. Mitchell · Gomes v. Silva

3. “'applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth' by the Supreme Court or 'confronts a set of facts that are materially - 11 - of habeas corpus, a petitioner must show that "the state court's ruling on the claim . . . was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gomes v. Silva