McDonald v. Champion’s Empirical Analysis
962 F.2d 1455 · 1992
Citation profile
15 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Teague v. Lane · Furman v. Georgia · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Marks v. United States
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““whether the [state court’s] construction is so unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct at issue as to prevent its application retroactively.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Evans v. Ray · Hawkins v. Gibson“any judicial expansion of that statute beyond its own terms will be considered unforeseeable,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Evans v. Ray · Hawkins v. Gibson“`[w]hen a statute on its face is narrow and precise... it lulls the potential defendant into a false sense of security, giving him no reason even to suspect that conduct clearly outside the scope of the statute as written will be retroactively brought within it by an act of judicial construction.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hawkins v. Gibson
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.