Matthews v. Abramajtys’s Empirical Analysis
319 F.3d 780 · 2003
Citation profile
21 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably Towns v. Smith (2005), Vasquez v. Jones (2007)
21 federal appellate ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Williams v. Taylor · Marshall v. Lonberger · Carey Warden v. Saffold
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [t]he killing of a human being (2) with the intent to Mil, to do great bodily harm, or to create a high risk of death or great bodily harm with knowledge that death or great bodily harm was the probable result (3) while committing, attempting to commit, or assisting in the commission of any of the felonies specifically enumerated in M.C.L. § 750.316; MSA 28.548.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he actual resolution of the conflicting evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the plausibility of competing explanations is -27- exactly the task to be performed by a rational jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Prior to the enactment of AEDPA, there was no specific time limitation for the filing of a federal habeas petition. Rule 9(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases established a standard allowing the dismissal of unduly delayed habeas petitions. It is not clear how that rule should be enforced following the enactment of a specific time limitation in AEDPA. Other than one District Court case applying a particular Second Circuit doctrine that we have not adopted and which shortens even the AEDPA one-year standard, ... we have found no cases applying a laches or laches-type defense to a petition timely filed under AEDPA....”
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.