Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 179 F.3d 1207 - Bargas v. Burns

Bargas v. Burns’s Empirical Analysis

179 F.3d 1207 · 1999

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably United States v. Fernandez (2004), Pellegrini v. State (2001)

18 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

3401999200020102020decided

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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Ake v. Oklahoma · Harris v. Reed · Henderson v. Morgan · Johnson v. Mississippi

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

  1. “clear, consistently applied, and well-established”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[w]e have repeatedly held that language that describes elements beyond what is required under statute is surplusage and need not be proved at trial”), cert. denied 529 U.S. 1073 , 120 S.Ct. 1686 , 146 L.Ed.2d 493 (2000); United States v. Wells, 127 F.3d 739, 743 (8th Cir.1997) (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “clear and regularly applied rule that a petitioner must pursue all avenues for relief if he wishes to preserve his claims”
    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.