Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 297 F.3d 895 - Raymond E. Hill v. State of Alaska

Raymond E. Hill v. State of Alaska’s Empirical Analysis

297 F.3d 895 · 2002

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
June 2023
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Magwood v. Patterson (2010), Medberry v. Crosby (2003)

20 federal appellate · 1 district ·

300200220102020decided

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 Slack v. McDaniel · McCleskey v. Zant · Ford v. Wainwright · Felker v. Turpin · Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal

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

  1. “(A) the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on- collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “at § 2244(b)), overruled in unrelated part by Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 123 S.Ct. 1398, 155 L.Ed.2d 363 (2003); Crouch v. Norris, 251 F.3d 720 , 723-25 (8th Cir.2001) (applying abuse of the writ principles to assess prisoner's challenge to the execution of his sentence); Muniz v. United States, 236 F.3d 122 , 127 (2d Cir.2001) (per curiam) (defining second or successive”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and our sister circuits have interpreted the concept incorporated in this term of art as derivative of the `abuse-of-the-writ' doctrine developed in pre-AEDPA cases.”
    1 later decision 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.