United States v. Kunzman’s Empirical Analysis
125 F.3d 1363 · 1997
Citation profile
94 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 149 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2012 · most notably Slack v. McDaniel (2000), United States v. Cepero (2000)
94 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 524 · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 157 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Lindh v. Murphy · United States v. Lopez · United States v. Ursery · Woodcock v. Chemical Bank
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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that 2254 and 2255 petitioners who filed their petitions in district court prior to AEDPA's effective date, regardless of whether they filed their notice of appeal before or after AEDPA's [effective date], do not need a certificate of appealability to proceed with their appeal”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 2255 motions are not available to test the legality of matters which should have been raised on direct appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is DENIED. * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3 1 Because Connally filed his habeas petition in 1995, before the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Connally v. Boone
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.