Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 353 F.3d 880 - Henderson v. Campbell

Henderson v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

353 F.3d 880 · 2003

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
March 2022
most recently cited

21 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2022 · most notably United States v. Webb (2009), Maharaj v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections (2005)

21 federal appellate ·

260200320102020decided

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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier

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

  1. “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) the state court applied a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth by Supreme Court case law, or (2) when faced with materially indistinguishable facts, the state court arrived at a result different from that reached in a Supreme Court case.”
    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.