Pierotti v. Walsh’s Empirical Analysis
834 F.3d 171 · 2016
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Michigan v. Long · Ford v. Georgia · Remon Lee v. Mike Kemna Superintendent Crossroads Correctional Center · Fox Film Corporation v. Muller
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“exorbitant application of a generally sound rule renders the state ground inadequate to stop consideration of a federal question”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pierotti v. Harris“how well he was able to follow [the] proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pierotti v. Harris
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.