Smith v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
764 F.3d 790 · 2014
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Cuyler v. Sullivan · United States v. Cronic · Bell Warden v. Cone · Billy Ray Fox v. Ron Ward -
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.
“1) whether the petitioner relied on federal cases that engage in a constitutional analysis; 2) whether the petitioner relied on state cases which apply a constitutional analysis to similar facts; 3) whether the petitioner framed the claim in terms so particular as to call to mind a specific constitutional right; and 4) whether the petitioner alleged a pattern of facts that is well within the mainstream of constitutional litigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schmidt v. Foster“closing statement was equivocal and perfunctory to the point of being useless”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Polk v. State“entirely failed to cross-examine any other witness,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Polk v. State
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.