Carmichael v. Chappius’s Empirical Analysis
848 F.3d 536 · 2017
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Powers v. Ohio
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than the Supreme Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Carmichael v. Chappius , 848 F.3d 536 , 544 (2d Cir. 2017) (alterations omitted) (quoting Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362 , 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) ). A state court decision is an”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.”
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.