Lancaster v. Metrish’s Empirical Analysis
683 F.3d 740 · 2012
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor · Estelle v. McGuire · United States v. Young · Bouie v. City of Columbia
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Michigan Court of Appeals['] denial of Lancaster's due process claim was reasonable ... because the diminished-capacity defense was not well-established in Michigan and its elimination was, therefore, foreseeable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“: To obtain habeas corpus relief from a federal court, a state prisoner must show that the challenged state-court ruling rested on”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“because it concerned an unambiguous statute that was interpreted by the [Michigan] Supreme Court for the first time.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.