Titlow v. Burt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “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— (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. 506 F. App'x 362 - Claude Varney v. Raymond Booker · 501 F. App'x 494 - Pablo Bonilla v. Blaine Lafler

2. “[w]hen a defendant proclaims ... innocence ..., it is not objectively unreasonable to recommend that the defendant refrain from pleading guilty-no matter how 'good' the deal may appear.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Burt v. Titlow

3. “the decision to withdraw Titlow's plea was based on the fact that the State's plea offer was substantially higher than the Michigan guidelines for second-degree murder.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Burt v. Titlow