Murray v. Schriro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e may only hold that a state court's decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts if 'we are convinced that an appellate panel, applying the normal standards of appellate review, could not reasonably conclude that the finding is supported by the record.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tamplin v. Muniz · Kayer v. Ryan

2. “in order for us to discharge our responsibility under AEDPA to review a Bat-son claim under section 2254(d)(2), we often will have to conduct a formal comparative juror analysis, and our responsibility to conduct a comparative juror analysis is not contingent on whether the state court previously performed or did not perform a formal comparative juror analysis.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McDaniels v. Kirkland · United States v. Atkins

3. “Rather, we must be satisfied that any appellate court to whom the defect is pointed out would be unreasonable in holding that the state court's fact-finding process was adequate.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kirkpatrick v. Chappell · Kirkpatrick v. Chappell