Higgins v. Cain’s Empirical Analysis
720 F.3d 255 · 2013
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
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 · Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor · Hernandez v. New York · Jones v. Barnes
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law” (emphasis added)); Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 , 473, 127 S.Ct, 1933 , 167 L.Ed.2d 836 (2007) (stating that AEDPA review does not involve”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Charles v. Stephens
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.