Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 118 F.3d 871 - Martin v. Bissonette

Martin v. Bissonette’s Empirical Analysis

118 F.3d 871 · 1997

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
3
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Jimmy Walker v. J.T. O'brien, and Joseph W. Finfrock v. Craig A. Hanks (2000), Harpster v. Ohio (1997)

25 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions

400199720002010decided

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. § 1915 · 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Lindh v. Murphy · In re Oliver · Waller v. Georgia · Harris v. Nelson · Nebraska v. Wyoming

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

  1. “did not pay a filing fee to the district court and ha[d] not paid any other fees associated with the maintenance of his suit. Thus, the threshold question [was] whether the PLRA applies to habeas petitions brought in federal court by state prisoners.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Because [petitioner's] case was still pending before us on a petition for rehearing when Lindh was decided, we withdrew our earlier opinion and now reevaluate [petitioner's] claims under the pre-AEDPA standard.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Though habeas proceedings are technically civil actions, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the label is ill-fitting and that habeas is in fact a unique creature of the law.”
    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.