Scott v. Gelb’s Empirical Analysis
810 F.3d 94 · 2016
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2254 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor · Powers v. Ohio · Yarborough v. Alvarado · Harrington v. Richter
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A state court decision applying state law deserves deference under AEDPA 'as long as the state and federal issues are for all practical purposes synonymous and the state standard is at least as protective of the [petitioner]'s rights.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hen a habeas claim has been adjudicated on its merits in state court, [AEDPA] mandates highly deferential federal court review of state court holdings.”
3 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.