Carter v. Butts’s Empirical Analysis
760 F.3d 631 · 2014
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Evitts v. Lucey · Harrington v. Richter · McNeill v. United States
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We may not issue a writ “simply because [we] .conclude^] ... that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. ' Rather, that application must also be 'unreasonable.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 , 411 [ 120 S.Ct. 1495 ] (2000); Rastafari v. Anderson, 278 F.3d 673 , 688 (7th. Cir.2002). This demanding standard allows us to issue a writ only in cases “where there is no possibility fair-minded jurists could disagree that the state court’s decision conflicts with .[Supreme Court] precedents. It goes no farther.” Harrington [v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 , 102, 131 S.Ct. 770 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carter v. Duncan“It is not enough for the defendant to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]ounsel's errors must have been 'so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.