Wood v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
693 F.3d 1104 · 2012
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Estelle v. McGuire · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]rosecutorial misconduct[ ] warrant[s] relief only if [it] 'had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Noguera v. Davis“so infect[ed] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Noguera v. Davis“fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.”
1 later decision 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.