Simmons v. Bowersox’s Empirical Analysis
235 F.3d 1124 · 2001
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 15 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Roper Superintendent Potosi Correctional Center v. Simmons (2005), United States v. Lebrun (2004)
35 federal appellate · 15 district · 9 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Gault · Berkemer v. McCarty · Darden v. Wainwright · Caldwell v. Mississippi
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.
“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) measure the type of prejudice that arose from the argument; (2) examine what defense counsel did in rebuttal to minimize prejudice; (3) review jury instructions to see if the jury was properly instructed; and (4)determine if there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the sentencing phase would have been different, taking into account all of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.