Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 122 F.3d 518 - Tiedeman v. Benson

Tiedeman v. Benson’s Empirical Analysis

122 F.3d 518 · 1997

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
March 2018
most recently cited

50 federal appellate · 14 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 97 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably Slack v. McDaniel (2000), United States v. Kunzman (1997)

50 federal appellate · 14 district ·

520199720002010decided

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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Lindh v. Murphy · Charter Co. v. Certified Class in the Charter Securities Litigation · Administracion Nacional de Telecomunicaciones v. New Valley Corp. · Gifford v. United States · Hunter v. United States

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

  1. “(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).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[w]hatever changes AEDPA has made with respect to appeals by habeas corpus petitioners are procedural only.... [T]he new provisions with respect to certificates of appealability made no substantive change in the standards by which applications for such certificates are governed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.