Burris v. Parke’s Empirical Analysis
116 F.3d 256 · 1997
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2010 · most notably Michael Wayne Williams v. John Taylor Warden (2000), Holman v. Gilmore (1997)
24 federal appellate · 6 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 Strickland v. Washington · Townsend v. Sain · Jones v. Barnes · McCleskey v. Kemp · Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a state could insulate its decisions from collateral attack in federal court by refusing to grant evidentiary hearings in its own courts.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. (2) If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that— (A) the claim relies on— (i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
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.