Stringer v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
161 F.3d 259 · 1998
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Lorenzo Montez v. Mark McKinna (2000), McNeely v. Blanas (2003)
22 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Ashe v. Swenson · Breed v. Jones · Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“consistent with the plain language of 2253(c)(1)(A), this court holds that a state prisoner must obtain a COA to appeal the denial of a habeas petition, whether such petition was filed pursuant to 2254 or 2241, whenever 'the detention complained of [in the petition] arises out of process issued by a State court.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'are not designed to punish a criminal defendant for violation of a criminal law'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have held that the double jeopardy clause does not apply to parole and probation revocation hearings.... Parole and revocation proceedings are not designed to punish for the violations of criminal laws, but to determine whether the conditions of parole or probation have been violated[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Waters
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.