Rolan v. Coleman’s Empirical Analysis
680 F.3d 311 · 2012
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Crawford v. Washington · Griffin v. California · Doyle v. Ohio · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Harris v. Reed
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rolan's discussion sufficiently identified his claims for the court”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued, and shall have at the head of each part-distinctive type or type distinctively displayed-the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]here a state court has considered the merits of the claim, and its consideration provides an alternative and sufficient basis for the decision, such consideration warrants deference.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Raulerson v. Warden
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.