Jones v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
890 F.3d 559 · 2018
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3599 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 46
Relies on Teague v. Lane · Irvin v. Dowd · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Penry v. Lynaugh · In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a state habeas trial court's factual findings do not survive review by the [TCCA] where they [are] neither adopted nor incorporated into the appellate court's peremptory denial of relief, but instead were directly inconsistent with the appellate court's decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Murphy v. Davis“[B]ecause the TCCA decided the case on procedural grounds, there was no 'determination of a factual issue made by a State court' to which the federal court could have deferred under § 2254(e)(1).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Murphy v. Davis“expressly rejected all findings and conclusions made by the lower habeas court and decided the case on procedural grounds.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Murphy v. Davis
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.