Busby v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
925 F.3d 699 · 2019
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Atkins v. Virginia · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he Supreme Court's holdings regarding Ford incompetence-to-be-executed claims cannot be imported, wholesale, into the law governing Atkins claims.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when a defendant who was convicted post- Atkins raises an Atkins claim for the first time in a successive habeas application[; that is because] the Texas court must determine whether the defendant has asserted facts, which if true, would sufficiently state an Atkins claim to permit consideration of the successive petition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“unreasonably determined that the facts set forth in [applicant]'s petition, if true, would not establish by clear and convincing evidence that no rational factfinder would fail to find [applicant] intellectually disabled.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.