Solis v. Garcia’s Empirical Analysis
219 F.3d 922 · 2000
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Lambert v. Blodgett (2004), Silva v. Woodford (2002)
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Teague v. Lane · Estelle v. McGuire · Picard v. Connor
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“and thus violate Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 316 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) (“habeas corpus cannot be used as a vehicle to create new constitutional rules of criminal procedure unless those rules would be applied retroactively to all defendants on collateral review through one of the two exceptions we have articulated”). Subsequently, in Solis v. Garcia, 219 F.3d 922, 929 (9th Cir.2000), the Ninth Circuit clarified its position: “we adhere to the law as stated in Bashor ” that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To properly exhaust a claim, petitioner must give the state supreme court a `fair opportunity to apply controlling legal principles to the facts bearing upon his [or her] constitutional claim.' A state prisoner must `have fairly presented to state courts the substance of his [or her] federal habeas claim.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Luna v. Cambra
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.