Wood v. Carpenter’s Empirical Analysis
907 F.3d 1279 · 2018
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Williams v. Taylor · Lockett v. Ohio · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden
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.
“A state-court decision is only contrary to clearly established federal law if it 'arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by' the Supreme Court, or 'decides a case differently' than the Court on a 'set of materially indistinguishable facts.' " Id. (quoting Williams , 529 U.S. at 412-13 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 ). "But a state court need not cite the Court's cases or, for that matter, even be aware of them.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A state court's decision unreasonably applies federal law if it 'identifies the correct governing legal principle' from the relevant Supreme Court decisions but applies those principles in an objectively unreasonable manner.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“So long as the state-court's reasoning and result are not contrary to the Court's specific holdings, § 2254(d)(1) prohibits [this court] from granting relief.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.