Contreras v. Artus’s Empirical Analysis
778 F.3d 97 · 2015
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Williams v. Taylor · Singleton v. Wulff · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Delaware v. Fensterer
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f a legal rule is specific, the range may be narrow. Applications of the rule may be plainly correct or incorrect. Other rules are more general, and their meaning must emerge in application over the course of time. Applying a general standard to a specific case can demand a substantial element of judgment. As a result, evaluating whether a rule application was unreasonable requires considering the rule’s specificity.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“difficult to meet and highly deferential.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fernandez v. Capra
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.