Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 151 F.3d 918 - Thompson v. Calderon

Thompson v. Calderon’s Empirical Analysis

151 F.3d 918 · 1998

Citation profile

110
cited by 110 later decisions
1
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Robert Rodriguez v. Robert Mitchell (2001), Gonzalez v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections (2004)

55 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

7101998200020102020decided

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. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 46

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Gregg v. Georgia · Schlup v. Delo · McCleskey v. Zant · Pennsylvania v. Ritchie

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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “By “prima facie showing” we understand ... simply a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the district court.... If in light of the documents submitted with the [PFA motion] it appears reasonably likely that the [motion] satisfies the stringent requirements for the filing of a second or successive petition, we shall grant the [motion].”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “'a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the district court,’ ” and we will grant an application for an SOS petition if”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “the language [of 2244(b)(3)(E)] does not preclude sua sponte review by an en banc court. It merely precludes the parties from seeking a rehearing.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.