Winfield v. O'Brien’s Empirical Analysis
775 F.3d 1 · 2014
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Jackson v. Virginia · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether the state court['s] ruling that the evidence is constitutionally sufficient was itself - 11 - 'unreasonable.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'Unreasonable' in this context means that the decision 'evinces some increment of incorrectness beyond mere error.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“involves the layering of two standards. The habeas question of whether the state court decision is objectively unreasonable is layered on top of the underlying standard governing the constitutional right asserted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rivera v. Wall
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.