Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 311 F.3d 915 - Smith v. Bowersox

Smith v. Bowersox’s Empirical Analysis

311 F.3d 915 · 2002

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2023 · most notably Teti v. Bender (2007), Robinson v. Polk (2006)

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

210200220102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Brady v. United States · Ring v. Arizona · Colorado v. Connelly

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

  1. “Diligence will require in the usual case that the prisoner, at a minimum, seek an evidentiary hearing in state court in the manner prescribed by state law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[The petitioner's] failure to comply with Missouri law reflects a lack of diligence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim”
    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.