Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 258 F.3d 484 - Porterfield v. Bell

Porterfield v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis

258 F.3d 484 · 2001

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
May 2024
most recently cited

9 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2024 · most notably Gonzalez v. Thaler (2012), Gonzalez v. Thaler (2012)

9 federal appellate ·

210200120102020decided

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 Slack v. McDaniel · Barefoot v. Estelle · United States of America v. James Marcello Anthony Zizzo · Lyons v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority · Alexander v. Johnson

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

  1. “because the district court [was] already deeply familiar with the claims raised by petitioner,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals . . . “(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. “(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.