Dorisca v. Marchilli’s Empirical Analysis
2019
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · Crawford v. Washington · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Brecht v. Abrahamson
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a state prisoner must show that the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even where a state court has misapplied federal law, we will only grant relief to the petitioner 'in cases in which all fairminded jurists would agree that a final state court decision is at odds with the Supreme Court's existing precedents.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen we consider a state conviction on habeas review, we presume the state court's factual - 2 - findings to be correct.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gomes v. Silva · Woods v. Medeiros
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.