Simms v. Warden’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
707 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 707 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably Simms v. Warden, State Prison (1994), Copas v. Commissioner of Correction (1995)
707 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)
Relies on Barefoot v. Estelle · Rosenberg v. Comerica Bank · Lozada v. Deeds · State v. Curcio · Castro v. Viera
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 707 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To prove an abuse of discretion, the petitioner must demonstrate that the [resolution of the underlying claim involves issues that] are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner]; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage“failed to list all adjacent property owners and provide proper notice to the same. " (Plaintiffs' memorandum, p. 2). Thus, the plaintiffs question the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. "Once an issue of subject matter jurisdiction has come to our attention, we cannot adjudicate a case on its merits without first determining whether we have the authority to proceed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“After the habeas court issued its memorandum of decision, the petitioner petitioned for certification to appeal. On May 3, 2016, the habeas court denied the petition for certification. This appeal followed. I The petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.