Mitchell v. Rees’s Empirical Analysis
114 F.3d 571 · 1997
Citation profile
18 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Byrd v. Collins (2000), Coleman v. Mitchell (2001)
18 federal appellate ·
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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Batson v. Kentucky · Gideon v. Wainwright · Wainwright v. Sykes · Thomas v. Arn
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a district court abuses its discretion by ordering [an evidentiary] hearing without first requiring the petitioner to make the requisite showing [of cause and prejudice]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court’s conclusion that the state court record demonstrates ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to the Batson issue necessarily depends on the record’s demonstrating the existence of a meritorious Batson claim. The state appellate court that reviewed the dismissal of Mitchell’s post-conviction petition found that “the lack of evidence on the Batson issue does not justify this Court in upsetting the judgment entered in the original cases,” and in Mitchell I, we held that to be a finding of fact that was “fairly supported” by the state court record. Id. at 578-79. The district court was not free to overrule our conclusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“proof of such factual determination has been made, unless the existence of one or more of the circumstances respectively set forth in paragraphs numbered (1) to (7), inclusive, is shown by the applicant, otherwise appears, or is admitted by the respondent, or unless the court concludes pursuant to the provisions of paragraph numbered (8) that the record in the State court proceeding, considered as a whole, does not fairly support such factual determination, the burden shall rest upon the applicant to establish by convincing evidence that the factual determination by the State court was erroneous.”
1 later decision 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.