Hicks v. Hepp’s Empirical Analysis
871 F.3d 513 · 2017
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · North Carolina v. Alford · Coleman v. Thompson
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) .resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2). resulted, in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of. the facts in light ■ of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[o]ur review is governed (and greatly limited) by the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ('AEDPA').”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Czech v. Melvin“does not argue that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve the issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McGhee v. Watson
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.