Alberto Valdez v. Janie Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division -’s Empirical Analysis
274 F.3d 941 · 2001
Citation profile
106 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 185 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably Cullen v. Pinholster (2011), Cullen v. Pinholster (2011)
106 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
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Townsend v. Sain · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Allen v. McCurry · Brown v. Allen
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 185 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.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A prisoner who developed his claim in state court and can prove the state court’s decision was ‘contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,’ is not barred from obtaining relief by § 2254(d)(1). If the opening clause of § 2254(e)(2) covers a request for an evidentiary hearing on a claim which was pursued with diligence but remained undeveloped in state court because, for instance, the prosecution concealed the facts, a prisoner lacking clear and convincing evidence of innocence could be barred from a hearing on the claim even if he could satisfy § 2254(d).” Id., at 434 (citation omitted; emphasis added).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The word `shall' is mandatory in meaning.”
3 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.