Mason v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
729 F.3d 545 · 2013
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on State v. Mason · Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania · Poland v. Arizona · United States v. Moored · Mason v. Mitchell
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“conditional writs 'would be meaningless' if a habeas court could not determine compliance with them and order sanctions accordingly.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the State of Ohio is not barred from seeking the death penalty in the new penalty-phase trial against Mason, even though the State failed to recommence the sentencing proceeding within this court's 180-day deadline.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Mason“Gentry v. Deuth , 456 F.3d 687 , 692 (6th Cir. 2006). Of course,”
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.