Pena v. Dickhaut’s Empirical Analysis
736 F.3d 600 · 2013
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Griffin v. California · Porter v. McCollum · Burt v. Titlow
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“we must use a doubly deferential standard of review that gives both the state court and the defense attorney the benefit of the doubt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Field v. Hallett“an unreasonable determination of the facts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Field v. Hallett
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.