Muniz v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
114 F.3d 43 · 1997
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Lackey v. Johnson (1997), Whitehead v. Johnson (1998)
26 federal appellate · 1 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 Administracion Nacional de Telecomunicaciones v. New Valley Corp. · Drinkard v. Johnson · Muniz v. State · Hunter v. United States · Porter v. Gramley
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A district court must deny the COA before a petitioner can request one from this court. The rule contemplates that the district court will make the first judgment whether a COA should issue and on which issues, and that the circuit court will be informed by the district court's determination in its own decisionmaking.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cardenas v. Thaler · Black v. Davis“Prior to the enactment of § 102 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 , 1217-18 (1996) (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2253 ), a habeas petitioner had to receive a CPC to appeal. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253 (West 1994). Section 2253, as amended by the AEDPA, now requires the petitioner to receive a COA, and this requirement applies to petitioners who did not receive a CPC prior to April 24, 1996, the effective date of the AEDPA. See Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751 , 755-56 (5th Cir.1996), cert. denied, [- U.S. -], 117 S.Ct. 1114 [ 137 L.Ed.2d 315 ] (1997). The standard for obtaining a COA is the same as for a CPC. See id. at 756. There is, nonetheless, at least one significant difference: A COA, unlike a CPC, must “indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required-” 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (e)(3). 1”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from— (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Blackman v. Ercole
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.