Billy George Hughes v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,institutional Division’s Empirical Analysis
191 F.3d 607 · 1999
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 228 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Alberto Valdez v. Janie Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division - (2001), State v. Floyd (2000)
40 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Brady v. State of Maryland · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · United States v. Bagley · Coleman v. Thompson
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 228 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The procedural default doctrine, resting on our confinement to review of federal questions, precludes federal habeas review when the last reasoned state court opinion addressing a claim explicitly rejects it on a state procedural ground.... The doctrine presumes that a state procedural ground is adequate and independent — the rule must, for instance, be regularly followed — and, ordinarily, the burden is on the habeas petitioner to demonstrate otherwise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our standard of review for an insufficient evidence claim in a federal habeas corpus proceeding is “whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” In applying this standard, a federal habeas court refers to the state’s criminal law for the substantive elements of the offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCullum v. Dretke“When there is a factual dispute, [that,] if resolved in the petitioner's favor, would entitle [him] to relief and the state has not afforded the petitioner a full and fair evidentiary hearing, a federal habeas corpus petitioner is entitled to discovery and an evidentiary hearing.”
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.