Evans v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
875 F.3d 210 · 2017
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Leon · Mapp 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[We consider] not only the arguments and theories the state habeas court actually relied upon to reach its ultimate decision but also all the arguments and theories it could have relied upon.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Langley v. Prince“In fact, [to survive review under the 'contrary to' clause,] the state habeas court need not even display awareness of the Supreme Court's cases....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thomas v. Vannoy“ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thomas v. Vannoy
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.