Williams v. Roper’s Empirical Analysis
695 F.3d 825 · 2012
Citation profile
19 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 · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Atkins v. Virginia · Penry v. Lynaugh
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sasser v. Hobbs · Harden v. Norman“a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barnett v. Roper“show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Forrest v. Steele
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.