Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 282 F.3d 1132 - Hernandez III v. Small

Hernandez III v. Small’s Empirical Analysis

282 F.3d 1132 · 2002

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
January 2020
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2020 · most notably Frantz v. Hazey (2008), Moses v. Payne (2009)

32 federal appellate · 1 district ·

440200220102020decided

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 · Bruton v. United States · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Ohio v. Roberts

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

  1. “A state court's decision can involve an `unreasonable application' of Federal law if it ... 2) extends or fails to extend a clearly established legal principle to a new context in a way that is objectively unreasonable.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “unreasonable application” of federal law if it (1)”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he intricacies of the state court’s analysis need not concern us; what matters is whether the decision the court reached was contrary to controlling federal law.”) (emphasis in original), with Van Lynn v. Farmon, 347 F.3d 735 , 741 (9th Cir.2003) (”
    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.