Smith v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
216 F.3d 521 · 2000
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Lorraine v. Coyle (2002), Scott v. Johnson (2000)
10 federal appellate ·
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 Coleman v. Thompson · Fisher v. Texas · Washington v. James · Barnes v. Thompson · Fearance v. Scott
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he relevant concerns are whether the petitioner has been given notice that procedural default will be an issue for consideration, whether the petitioner has had a reasonable opportunity to argue against application of the bar, and whether the State intentionally waived the defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“expressly left open the possibility that this court may, in the appropriate circumstances, apply the procedural bar sua sponte when the state has waived the defense in the district court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Scott v. Johnson“adequate and independent state procedural ground to bar federal habeas review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ford v. Davis
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.