Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 322 F.3d 573 - Bennett v. Mueller

Bennett v. Mueller’s Empirical Analysis

322 F.3d 573 · 2003

Citation profile

122
cited by 122 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
September 2021
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 122 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2021 · most notably Leavitt v. Arave (2004), Walker v. Martin (2011)

39 federal appellate · 4 district ·

910200320102020decided

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. § 1291

Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Michigan v. Long · Ake v. Oklahoma · Harris v. Reed · O'NEAL v. McAninch

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

  1. “Once the state has adequately pled the existence of an independent and adequate state procedural ground as an affirmative defense, the burden to place that defense in issue shifts to the petitioner. The petitioner may satisfy this burden by asserting specific factual allegations that demonstrate the inadequacy of the state procedure, including citation to authority demonstrating inconsistent application of the rule. Once having done so, however, the ultimate burden is the state’s.”
    20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “firmly established and regularly followed”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[o]nce the state pleads the affirmative defense of an independent and adequate state procedural bar, the burden to place that defense in issue shifts to the petitioner. This must be done, at a minimum, by specific allegations by the petitioner as to the inadequacy of the state procedure. The scope of the state’s burden of proof thereafter will be measured by the specific claims of inadequacy put forth by the petitioner.”
    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.