Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 F.3d 1131 - Herbert v. Billy

Herbert v. Billy’s Empirical Analysis

160 F.3d 1131 · 1998

Citation profile

137
cited by 137 later decisions
5
states following
October 2021
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Commonwealth v. Williams (2003), Harris v. Stovall (2000)

52 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

10001998200020102020decided

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 Benton v. Maryland · Lindh v. Murphy · United States v. Halper · United States v. Dixon · Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez

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

  1. “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
    20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “lower federal court decisions in deciding whether the state decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “may not grant a writ of habeas to a petitioner in state custody with respect to any claim adjudicated on the merits in state court unless (1) the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court” ... or (2) the state court’s decision “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceedings.””
    5 later decisions 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.