Alfaro v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
862 F.3d 1176 · 2017
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Teague v. Lane · Engle v. Isaac · William O'sullivan v. Darren Boerckel · Lynce v. Mathis · Welch v. United States
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.
“The key distinguishing factor between Lackey and Jones claims is that the latter concern systemic delay that creates arbitrariness in executions.”) and Jones, 806 F.3d at 554 (Watford, J., concurring) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Rowland v. Chappell
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.