946 F. Supp. 1521 - Perez v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2014
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 2261 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2262 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2264 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2266 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Faretta v. California · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Fay v. Noia · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Blum v. Stenson
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) 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; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n passing § 2254(d), Congress has not usurped the Court’s judicial function. Under the Act, federal courts are still able and required to exercise independent judgment to -determine whether the state court’s decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, federal law. If the state court’s application of federal law was unreasonable, the federal court has the power to grant the writ. Therefore, the Act does not violate Article III.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.