Walker v. Martel’s Empirical Analysis
709 F.3d 925 · 2013
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Gregg v. Georgia · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Arizona v. Fulminante
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Crucially, this is not a de novo review of the constitutional question. Rather, even a strong case for relief does not mean the state court's contrary conclusion was unreasonable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when the state court does not supply reasoning for its decision, we are instructed to engage in an independent review of the record and ascertain whether the state court's decision was objectively unreasonable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Murray v. Schriro“whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a prior decision of [the Supreme Court]. ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Murray v. Schriro
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.