Dominguez v. Kernan’s Empirical Analysis
906 F.3d 1127 · 2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Younger v. Harris · Ashe v. Swenson · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Brown 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 2254 requires a nexus between 'the judgment of a State court' and the 'custody' the petitioner contends is 'in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gouveia v. Espinda“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,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gouveia v. Espinda“'[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody,' not necessarily a challenge to a judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gouveia v. Espinda
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.