Mays v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
807 F.3d 968 · 2015
Citation profile
2 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · Edwards v. Arizona
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]n collateral review, relief is appropriate if the prosecution cannot demonstrate harmlessness” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 8 . We refer to the statutes as they existed at the times of conviction because it is the”
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.