Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 256 SW3D 702 - Ex Parte Chi

Ex Parte Chi’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Farmer v. Brennan · Teague v. Lane · Sandin v. Conner · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Beck v. Alabama

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If anything, considerations of comity militate in favor of allowing state courts to grant habeas corpus relief to a broader class of individuals than is required by Teague. "). I am not aware that we have ever adopted such a rule of cognizability in Texas. [36] Ex parte Smith, 977 S.W.2d 610, 611 (Tex. Crim.App.1998), citing Ex parte Davis, 947 S.W.2d 216, 221, 223 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (Opinion of McCormick, P.J.) ("the Legislature clearly has intended for Article 11.071 to provide the exclusive means by which this Court may exercise its original habeas corpus jurisdiction in death penalty cases.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “of any degree, much less confinement, that resulted on account of Baker's Chapter 64 attorney's alleged ineffectiveness and therefore stated no cognizable claim. By contrast, as I have already shown, each of the instant applicants has alleged a definite restraint upon his liberty interest in avoiding a cruel and unusual punishment. We cannot deny them some habeas corpus forum without effectively suspending the writ. The plurality also seems to rely, by analogy, upon the opinion of the Supreme Court in Hill v. McDonough [28] for the proposition that claims that do not implicate the”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “interest that is sufficient to overcome the State's legitimate interest in extinguishing it, consonant with due process. The one substantive constitutional right he unquestionably retains, however, is the right, when the time comes, to be executed in a humane manner. I cannot accept that the Great Writ should not be an available remedy for the applicant to raise an Eighth Amendment challenge to the manner of his execution on the ground that it does not impact the”
    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.