Cornell v. Nix’s Empirical Analysis
119 F.3d 1329 · 1997
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Osborne v. Purkett (2005), Cox v. Burger (2005)
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
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 · Jackson v. Virginia · Brady v. State of Maryland · Murray v. Carrier · Lindh v. Murphy
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Schlup explained that a petitioner’s request for relief because of actual innocence can be based on different grounds and that the level of proof required to establish “actual innocence” depends upon the type of ground the petitioner bases his or her petition for relief.- Of particular relevance to this case, Schlup described the difference between Schlup’s procedural claim of actual innocence and the substantive claim of actual innocence raised in Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 , 113 S.Ct. 853 , 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993). In Herrera , the petitioner asserted that because he was actually innocent of the crime for which he had been convicted, his execution would constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See id. at 398 , 113 S.Ct. at 859 . Herrera assumed, without deciding, that “in a capital case a truly persuasive demonstration of ‘actual innocence’ made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional.” Id. at 417 , 113 S.Ct. at 869 . Herrera , however, did not establish the exact level of proof that would hypothetically be required for a substantive claim based on actual innocence because Herrera did not come close to meeting this standard. The Court, however, stated that the standard would be “extraordinarily high.” Id.; accord id. at 426, 113 S.Ct. at 874 (O’Connor, J., concurring). In contrast, Schlup’s constitutional claims were not based on his innocence, ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tomlinson v. Burt
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.