Chandler v. Richards’s Empirical Analysis
935 F.2d 915 · 1991
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Montgomery v. Petersen · United States ex rel. Smith v. Fairman · Nichols v. Gagnon · Williams v. Duckworth
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]s a general matter, Jackson follows the basic legal standard that in order to preserve the state factfinder’s role a federal court must review the evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution. Section 2254(d), on the other hand, provides guidance as to the extent a federal court should probe a state court’s fact-finding when ruling on habeas petitions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gilley v. Collins“the jury--not this court--determines the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses, including the victim.”
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.