Rayner v. Mills’s Empirical Analysis
685 F.3d 631 · 2012
Citation profile
15 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Wiggins and Rompilla line of cases work together with [Richter ] to ensure application of AEDPA deference to an entire ineffective assistance claim.”). Our own views on the possible tension between these Supreme Court precedents can be expressed on another day. 11 . Even after establishing deficient performance, a defendant must also show that the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“review [was] not circumscribed by a state court conclusion with respect to prejudice, as neither of the state courts below reached this prong of the Strickland analysis.” Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 534 , 123 S.Ct. 2527 ; see Rompilla, 545 U.S. at 390 , 125 S.Ct. 2456 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hodges v. Colson“The unadjudicated prong is reviewed de novo.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Lang v. Bobby
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.