Hudson v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
351 F.3d 212 · 2003
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably State v. Maestas (2012), Musladin v. Lamarque (2009)
22 federal appellate · 1 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Teague v. Lane · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · United States v. Cronic · Bousley v. United States
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“before deciding against the petitioner on the merits”). On appeal, the State has not objected to the district court’s approach, and has confined its arguments to the merits of Ray’s habeas petition. 5 . During oral arguments, the State objected to Ray raising this argument in reply and urged this Court to consider it waived.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Rlereading of identical jury instructions is not a critical stage of a criminal trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Judicial economy might counsel giving the [other] question priority, for example, if it were easily resolvable against the habeas petitioner, whereas the procedural-bar issue involved complicated issues of state law.”), and Nobles v. Johnson, 127 F.3d 409, 423-24 (5th Cir.1997) (deciding against the petitioner on the merits even though the claim was procedurally defaulted)). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(2) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. LAUTNER v. Berghuis
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.