Bolton v. Akpore’s Empirical Analysis
730 F.3d 685 · 2013
Citation profile
12 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 · Brady v. State of Maryland · Slack v. McDaniel · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Wade
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim — (1) 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!.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kelley v. Zoeller“must assert his federal claim through one complete round of state court review, either on direct review or in post-conviction proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McGhee v. Watson“non-certified claims are not properly before this court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schmidt v. Foster
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.