Young v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
835 F.3d 520 · 2016
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 Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Batson v. Kentucky · Coleman v. Thompson · Teague v. Lane · Barefoot v. Estelle
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“187th District Court Opinion”). 29 . Ex parte Young, No. WR-70,513-01, 2013 WL 2446428 (Tex. Crim. App. June 5, 2013) (unpublished). 30 . Young v. Stephens, No. SA-13-CA-500-XR, 2015 WL 4276196 (W.D. Tex. July 13, 2015). 31 . Young v. Davis, 835 F.3d 520 , 530 (5th Cir. 2016). 32 . Young v. Davis, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1224 , 197 L.Ed.2d 466 (2017). 33 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Young v. Davis
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.