Ceja v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
134 F.3d 1368 · 1998
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2014
11 federal appellate ·
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. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Gregg v. Georgia · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Furman v. Georgia · Williams v. People of State of New York · Barefoot v. Estelle
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“ceases realistically to further these purposes ... its imposition would then be the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purpose. A penalty with such negligible returns to the State would be patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Smith v. Mahoney · Smith v. Mahoney“petition based on failure to obtain permission to file from the Ninth Circuit because no Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit authority recognizes a Lackey claim as an exception to AEDPA). It is undisputed that Allen did not seek our permission to file his Lackey claim in the district court. Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 34 Allen now seeks permission to file his Lackey claim as a”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Allen v. Ornoski“a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Nguyen v. Gibson
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.