Poyson v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
879 F.3d 875 · 2013
Citation profile
1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2021
1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2264 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Lockett v. Ohio · Ring v. Arizona
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Spreitz v. Ryan“improperly disregarded evidence concern[ing] the defendant's traumatic childhood and mental health issues.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martinez v. Ryan“). Under AEDPA, we may not grant habeas relief unless the state's adjudication of Spreitz's claim (1)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Spreitz v. Ryan
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.