Powell v. Gomez’s Empirical Analysis
33 F.3d 39 · 1994
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably McQuillion v. Duncan (2002), Biggs v. Terhune (2003)
15 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Sumner v. Mata · Superintendent Massachusetts Correctional Institution Walpole v. Hill · Miller v. Fenton · Marshall v. Lonberger · Halas v. Department of Energy
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he review of, and conclusions derived from, the report fall solely within the province of the trier of fact, in this case, the [Board].”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“had the opportunity to evaluate the [credibility] of the author of the report”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'some evidence' standard is minimally stringent, such that a decision will be upheld if there is 'any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.' " Powell v. Gomez, 33 F.3d 39 , 40 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703 , 705 (9th Cir.1987)). 4 We conclude that there is "some evidence”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilson v. Gomez
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.