Boyd v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
147 F.3d 1124 · 1998
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Robinson v. Ignacio (2004), Howard v. Bouchard (2005)
34 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Murray v. Carrier · Lindh v. Murphy · Granberry v. Greer · Lambrix v. Singletary
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Every circuit to consider the issue holds that a habeas court has discretion to raise procedural default sua sponte to further the interests of comity, federalism, and judicial efficiency.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress envisioned district courts taking an active role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court authorizes a district court to dismiss summarily a habeas petition, before the respondent files an answer, “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition ... that the petition is not entitled to relief.” The notes to Rule 4 state: “a dismissal may be called for on procedural grounds, which may avoid burdening the respondent with the necessity of filing an answer on the substantive merits of the petition.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When dealing with a pro se petitioner, the court must make clear the procedural default at issue and the consequences of failing to respond [before summarily dismissing petition on basis of procedural default].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Victor Acosta
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.