Drinkard v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
97 F.3d 751 · 1996
Citation profile
117 federal appellate · 12 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 332 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably Williams v. Taylor (2000), Jeffries v. Wood (1997)
117 federal appellate · 12 district ·
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
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Townsend v. Sain · Teague v. Lane · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Landgraf v. USI Film Products
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 332 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“only if a state court decision is so clearly incorrect that it would not be debatable among reasonable jurists.”
31 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(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.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(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.”
15 later decisions 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.