Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 133 F.3d 971 - Williams v. Parke

Williams v. Parke’s Empirical Analysis

133 F.3d 971 · 1997

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
May 2014
most recently cited

23 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably Jimmy Walker v. J.T. O'brien, and Joseph W. Finfrock v. Craig A. Hanks (2000), Paul Schaff v. Donald Snyder (1999)

23 federal appellate ·

210199720002010decided

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 · Coleman v. Thompson · Lindh v. Murphy · Picard v. Connor · Holman v. Gilmore

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

  1. “(e)(1) In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas' corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. (2) If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that— (A) the claim relies on— (i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact-finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,”
    4 later decisions 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.