Carriger v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate ·

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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carriger v. Lewis · William Jones v. Ml Smith Attorney General State of California

2. “First, the court must ascertain the date on which the defendant's conviction and sentence became final for Teague purposes. Second, the Court must survey the legal landscape as it then existed and determine whether a state court considering the defendant's claim at the time his conviction became final would have felt compelled by existing precedent to conclude that the rule he seeks was required by the Constitution. Finally, even if the court determines that the defendant seeks the benefit of a new rule, the court must decide whether that rule falls within one of the two narrow exceptions to the nonretroactivity principle.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. William Jones v. Ml Smith Attorney General State of California

3. “The retroactivity rule adopted in Teague reflects not only a healthy measure of respect for state court decisions that complied with contemporaneous constitutional norms, but it also serves a policy of treating all similarly situated defendants equally on federal habeas.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. William Jones v. Ml Smith Attorney General State of California