Greer v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
264 F.3d 663 · 2001
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 152 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Baker (2005), United States v. Dukagjini (2002)
66 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Strickland v. Washington · Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes
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 152 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the “contrary to” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than this Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Under the “unreasonable application” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from this Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(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 upon an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the court must determine whether there is such a procedural rule that is applicable to the claim at issue and whether the petitioner did, in fact, fail to follow it. Second, the court must decide whether the state courts actually enforced [their] procedural sanction. Third, the court must decide whether the state’s procedural forfeiture is an adequate and independent ground on which the state can rely to foreclose review of a federal constitutional claim. This question will usually involve an examination of the legitimate state interests behind the procedural rule in light of the federal interest in considering federal claims. And, fourth, the petitioner must demonstrate, ... that there was “cause” for him to neglect the procedural rule and that he was actually prejudiced by the alleged constitutional error.”
4 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.