Sharp v. Rohling’s Empirical Analysis
793 F.3d 1216 · 2015
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 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 Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Arizona v. Fulminante
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“interplay between § 2254(d)(2) and § 2254(e)(1) is an open question”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[s]tate court factual findings are presumed correct unless the petitioner shows by clear and convincing evidence they are not.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“unclear which standard imposes a greater burden on the petitioner.”
2 later decisions 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.