Hibbler v. Benedetti’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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.

1. “[c]hallenges under § 2254(d)(2) fall into two main categories.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pizzuto v. Blades · Stevens v. Carlin

2. “the petitioner must establish that the state court's decision rested on a finding of fact that is 'objectively unreasonable.' " Hibbler v. Benedetti , 693 F.3d at 1146 , quoting Lambert v. Blodgett , 393 F.3d 943 , 972 (9th Cir. 2004) and citing Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322 , 340, 123 S.Ct. 1029 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) and Taylor v. Maddox , 366 F.3d at 999 . The question "is not whether a federal court believes the state court's determination was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable-a substantially higher threshold.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stevens v. Carlin · Noguera v. Davis

3. “[W]hen the challenge is to the state court's procedure, mere doubt as to the adequacy of the state court's findings of fact is insufficient; we must be satisfied that any appellate court to whom the defect in the state court's fact-finding process is pointed out would be unreasonable in holding that the state court's fact-finding process was adequate.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pizzuto v. Blades · Noguera v. Davis