Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 187 F.3d 866 - James v. Bowersox

James v. Bowersox’s Empirical Analysis

187 F.3d 866 · 1999

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
March 2019
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Harrington v. Richter (2011), Harrington v. Richter (2011)

31 federal appellate · 2 district ·

470199920002010decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Young · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Darden v. Wainwright · College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board

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 68 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.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[f]ederal habeas relief should only be granted if the prosecutor's closing argument was so inflammatory and so outrageous that any reasonable trial judge would have sua sponte declared a mistrial.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process... it is not enough that the prosecutors' remarks were undesirable or even universally condemned.”
    2 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.