Mata v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
99 F.3d 1261 · 1996
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Nobles v. Johnson (1997), Rector v. Johnson (1997)
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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
Relies on United States v. Olano · Batson v. Kentucky · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Teague v. Lane
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he AEDPA amends section 2254(d)(1) in a way that produces an unusual choice-of-law rule — a rule which expressly provides that the state court’s decision is to be evaluated only under “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” This language requires a federal court, at a bare minimum, to canvass the Supreme Court precedents which were extant when the state court decided the ease. But we do not understand this language to imply that the opinions of inferior federal courts are totally irrelevant to an evaluation of state court decisions. Such opinions may help to confirm what legal principles were (or were not) definitively resolved by earlier Supreme Court eases, and, in all events, such decisions may prove useful in determining whether a state court’s application of Supreme Court precedents is unreasonable.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] reasonable, good faith application of Supreme Court precedent will immunize the state court conviction from federal habeas reversal, even if federal courts later reject that view of the applicable precedent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a somewhat hybrid standard of review that is probably most closely akin to the traditional 'clearly erroneous' standard than to any other established standard of review.”
3 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.