Winston v. Pearson’s Empirical Analysis
683 F.3d 489 · 2012
Citation profile
12 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Atkins v. Virginia · Harrington v. Richter
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“ultimately proves to be incomplete, deference to the state court’s judgment would be inappropriate because judgment on a materially incomplete.record is not an adjudication on the merits for purposes of § 2254(d) ... New, material evidence, introduced for the first during federal habeas proceedings, may therefore require a de novo review of .petitioner’s claim. .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Graves v. Lioi“We are not writing on a blank slate, at liberty to revisit our [prior] decision ... on a whim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Graves v. Lioi
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.