Kirkpatrick v. Chappell’s Empirical Analysis
872 F.3d 1047 · 2017
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2254 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Johnson v. Zerbst · Gregg v. Georgia · Arizona v. Fulminante
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under [the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) ], the decision of the California Supreme Court must be given deference, and cannot ... be reviewed de novo by this court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]here has been no unreasonable determination of the facts or a decision contrary to, or involving an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“power to review the decision of the California Supreme Court is extremely limited.”
2 later decisions 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.