Musser v. Mapes’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
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 Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Crawford v. Washington · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Pointer v. Texas
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.
“[t]he obvious purpose of th[e] statute is the protection of public health by discouraging the transmission of the AIDS virus[,]” and the court could not”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Musser v. Mapes
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.