Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 F.3d 453 - Nevius v. Sumner

Nevius v. Sumner’s Empirical Analysis

105 F.3d 453 · 1996

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

45 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Calderon v. Thompson (1998), Ortiz v. Stewart (1998)

45 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

3101996200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Coleman v. Thompson · Swain v. State of Alabama · Sullivan v. Louisiana · McCleskey v. Zant

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

  1. “falls within the discretion of the court, but such discretion should be employed to recall a mandate only when good cause or unusual circumstances exist sufficient to justify modification or recall of a prior judgment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “grounded in any real infirmity in our previous decision, either when it was entered or when it is viewed in light of later Supreme Court decisions.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[w]ithout intimating any view concerning the merits of Nevius' Cage claim, or any view regarding whether he has in fact met the requirements of 28 U.S.C. S 2244(b).”
    2 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.