Simms v. Warden, State Prison’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1,140 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,142 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably Copas v. Commissioner of Correction (1995), State v. Peeler (2004)
2 federal appellate · 1,140 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 Liteky et al United States · Barefoot v. Estelle · Rosenberg v. Comerica Bank · Lozada v. Deeds · Simms v. Warden
Cited together with Strickland v. Washington · Lozada v. Deeds · Simms v. Warden · North Carolina v. Alford · Hill v. Lockhart
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 1,142 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petitioner's request for certification, we necessarily must consider the merits of the petitioner's underlying claims to determine whether the habeas court reasonably determined that the petitioner's appeal was frivolous. In other words, we review the petitioner's substantive claims for the purpose of ascertaining whether those claims satisfy one or more of the three criteria ... adopted by [our Supreme Court] for determining the propriety of the habeas court's denial of the petition for certification.”
37 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“A person is guilty of assault in the first degree when ... (3) under circumstances evincing an extreme indifference to human life he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of death to another person, and thereby causes serious physical injury to another person....”
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.