Lujan v. Tansy’s Empirical Analysis
2 F.3d 1031 · 1993
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2015 · most notably Hatch v. Oklahoma (1995), Fero v. Kerby (1994)
29 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Estelle v. McGuire · Cupp v. Naughten · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · Lewis v. Jeffers
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Explicit and implicit findings by state trial and appellate courts shall be presumed to be correct unless one of seven factors listed in section 2254(d) are present or the federal court concludes that the state court findings are not fairly supported by the record.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roybal v. Warden · Roybal v. Shanks“federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bowser v. Boggs · Matthews v. Price“As we have recognized before, a petitioner such as Lujan bears a ‘great burden ... when ... [he] seeks to collaterally attack a state court judgment based on an erroneous jury instruction.’ (Citations omitted). ‘[H]abeas proceedings may not be used to set aside a state conviction on the basis of erroneous jury instructions unless the errors had the effect of rendering the trial so fundamentally unfair as to cause a denial of a fair trial in the constitutional sense.’ (Citations omitted). (‘[Federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law’---- [I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state court determinations on state law questions.’).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pearl v. McKune
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.