Lopez v. Douglas’s Empirical Analysis
141 F.3d 974 · 1998
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably United States v. Winestock (2003), Spitznas v. Boone (2006)
23 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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 Cooper v. Oklahoma · Autek Systems Corp. v. United States · Felker v. Turpin · Hatch v. State of Oklahoma
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found [him] 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.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a second habeas petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ('AEDPA').”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Since Petitioner filed Ms second § 2254 petition after April 24, 1996 ... he was required to comply with the [AEDPA’s] relevant provisions and obtain prior authorization from this court before filing in the district court. He failed to obtain this authorization. Therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide his unauthorized second petition, and this court must vacate the district court order [denying the petitioner’s motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6)].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Norris v. Konteh
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.