Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 132 F.3d 333 - In Re: Darrell A. Siggers, Movant

In Re: Darrell A. Siggers, Movant’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
August 2023
most recently cited

1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2023

1 district ·

501997200020102020decided

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 Murray v. Carrier · Schlup v. Delo · Sanders v. United States · Landis v. North American Co. · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman

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

  1. “hortatory or advisory rather than mandatory,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. (2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless— (A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, 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.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of this subsection.”
    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.