Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 F.3d 200 - Simpson v. Matesanz

Simpson v. Matesanz’s Empirical Analysis

175 F.3d 200 · 1999

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
2
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 31 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably United States v. Moss (2001), No. 96-2355 (1999)

23 federal appellate · 31 district · 2 state decisions

4901999200020102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier · Estelle v. McGuire

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

  1. “'that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[hjabeas review is not available in federal court unless, to use the statutory term, it is review of a “claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings.” ... Such independent and adequate state grounds exists where “the state court declined to hear [the federal claims] because the prisoner failed to meet a state procedural requirement.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If federal habeas courts were too ready to find that state "miscarriage of justice" review constitutes "waiver” of the state's procedural rules, the state either would have to convert what is often a speedy reviewing task into a full scale detailed examination ... or it would have to abandon miscarriage of justice review altogether.”
    1 later decision 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.