Mosley v. Atchison’s Empirical Analysis
689 F.3d 838 · 2012
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Arizona v. Fulminante · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The situation here is similar to that when a trial court erroneously grants a defendant’s motion for summary judgment. An appellate court will assume that the plaintiffs evidence is true and will reverse the summary judgment if there are genuine issues of material fact. The appellate court’s reversal, though, usually will not order that a final judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff, but will remand for a trial to resolve those disputed issues of fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Stitts v. Wilson“If the federal habeas court finds that the state-court- decision fails [§ 2254(d) ]’s test ..., then an [evidentiary] hearing may be needed. For example, if the state-court rejection assumed the habe-as-petitioner’s facts (deciding that, even if those facts were true, federal law was not violated), then (after finding the state court wrong on a(d) ground), an [evidentiary] hearing might be needed to determine whether the facts alleged were indeed true.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Stitts v. Wilson
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.