Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 268 F.3d 417 - Coleman v. Mitchell

Coleman v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

268 F.3d 417 · 2001

Citation profile

167
cited by 167 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

91 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 167 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Schriro v. Landrigan (2007), Lundgren v. Mitchell (2006)

91 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions

1370200120102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Anders v. California · Brady v. State of Maryland · Williams v. Taylor · Faretta v. California

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

  1. ““Reasonable doubt” is present when after you have carefully considered and compared all the evidence you cannot say that you are firmly convinced of the truth of the charge. Reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense. Reasonable doubt is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs or depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof of such character that an ordinary person would be willing to rely and act upon it in the most important of his or her own affairs.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “defendant resistance to disclosure of information does not excuse counsel's duty to independently investigate.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “is an adequate and independent state ground justifying foreclosure of constitutional claims in habeas.”
    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.