Dickens v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
740 F.3d 1302 · 2014
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson · Gregg v. Georgia · Teague v. Lane
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the underlying ineffective assistance of ... counsel claim is “substantial”; (2) the petitioner was not represented or had ineffective counsel during the [post-conviction relief (PCR) ] proceeding; (3) the state PCR proceeding was the initial review proceeding; and (4) state law required (or forced as a practical matter) the petitioner to bring the claim in the initial review collateral proceeding,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“fundamentally alter[s] the legal claim already considered by the state courts or place[s] the case in a significantly different and stronger evidentiary posture than it was when the state courts considered it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Filson“may take evidence to the extent necessary to determine whether [Rodney's] claim[s] of ineffective assistance of trial counsel [are] substantial under Martinez .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rodney v. Filson
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.