Stanbridge v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
791 F.3d 715 · 2015
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Padilla v. Kentucky · United State v. Morgan · Jones v. Cunningham · Maleng v. Cook · Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim — (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!.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have interpreted the [habeas statute] as requiring that the habeas petitioner be 'in custody' under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Savory v. Cannon“significantly restrain[ed] petitioner's liberty to do those things which in this country free men [were] entitled to do.”
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.