Hurles v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(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; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ayala v. Chappell · Sanders v. Cullen

2. “considering only the evidence before the state court, that the adjudication of a claim on the merits resulted in a decision contrary to or involving an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, or that the state court's decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tamplin v. Muniz · Livaditis v. Davis

3. “Here, the' sole defense at guilt was insanity, and Hurles’s expert offered testimony in support of that defense. -The state offered a contrary opinion, resulting in a battle of the experts. Both experts agreed that objective testing could show brain damage, but the trial court denied funding for this test until after the guilt phase concluded. The state used the absence of such an objective test to its advantage, tipping the scales of the battle of the experts in its favor. Appellate counsel’s failure to raise this claim on appeal was deficient, Appellate counsel “unreasonably failed to discover nonfrivolous issues” to appeal, and Hurles’s Ake claim was “clearly stronger than those presented” on appeal. Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285, 288 , 120 S.Ct 746 , 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Hurles also can show prejudice from this error, as the brain scan conducted after trial showed brain damage. The Supreme Court held in Martinez that “[allowing a federal habeas court to hear a claim of ineffective assistance of [appellate] counsel when an’ attorney’s errors... caused a procedural default in an initial-review collateral proceeding acknowledges, as an equitable matter, that the initial-review collateral proceeding, if undertaken ,. .with ineffective counsel, may not have been sufficient to ensure that proper consideration was given to a substantial claim.” Martinez, 132 S.Ct. at 1318 . We find cause sufficient to excuse the procedural default of H”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hurles v. Ryan