In re Holladay’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Bowling v. Commonwealth (2005), In re Griffin (2016)
56 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
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 Teague v. Lane · Bousley v. United States · Atkins v. Virginia · Penry v. Lynaugh · Ford v. Wainwright
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. (2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless— (A) the applicant shows that 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 factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Hicks · Thomas v. Allen“no question that the rule recently announced by the Supreme Court in Atkins — that the execution of mentally retarded • persons constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment — is a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to .cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court that was previously unavailable.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Hicks · In re Hill“[0]ur finding that the requirements expressly set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(2)(A) are satisfied in this case does not terminate our analysis. Indeed, these requirements merely represent the minimum showing that Holladay must make if we are to permit him to file a second or successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See § 2244(b)(3)(C) (“The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of this subsection.”). In this case, we find it manifestly obvious that in order to make a prima facie showing that he is entitled to file a second or successive petition based on [the] Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins, Holladay also must demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that he is in fact mentally retarded.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Turner · In re Williams
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.