Carlson v. Pitcher’s Empirical Analysis
137 F.3d 416 · 1998
Citation profile
15 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Rose v. Lundy · Felker v. Turpin · Christy v. Horn · Benton v. Washington · Camarano v. Irvin
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Cook · Dunn v. Singletary“a habeas petition filed after a previous petition has been dismissed [for failure to exhaust state remedies] is not a 'second or successive' petition implicating the pre-filing requirement of obtaining an order of authority from the court of appeals.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in Ught of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense, or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.”
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.