Vancleave v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis
150 F.3d 926 · 1998
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably Graham v. Johnson (1999), No. 96-2355 (1999)
15 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. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Lindh v. Murphy · McCleskey v. Zant · Lockhart v. McCree · Ford v. Wainwright · New Jersey v. New York
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Second, § 2244(b)(2) provides that claims that were not presented in the earlier habeas application “shall be dismissed” unless they rely on a new, retroactive, previously unavailable rule of constitutional law, or unless their factual predicate could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence and, if proved, they would establish petitioner’s innocence. This is a more restrictive standard than the cause and prejudice/actual innocence standard for excusing abuse of the writ under prior law. See United States v. Fallon, 992 F.2d 212, 213 (8th Cir.1993) (construing McCleskey v. Zant [ 499 U.S. 467 , 111 S.Ct. 1454 , 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991)]). Yancleave does not argue that any of his new claims meet this exacting standard. Our independent review of these claims confirms that they would have to be dismissed under § 2244(b)(2) and therefore do not warrant authorization to file a second or successive petition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(3)(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that some types of 'second' petitions do not implicate the judicially developed abuse-of-the-writ principles that were the basis for AEDPA's statutory restrictions”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. No. 96-2355
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.