Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 367 F.3d 993 - Clay v. Bowersox

Clay v. Bowersox’s Empirical Analysis

367 F.3d 993 · 2004

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably Montgomery v. Bobby (2011), E. SIFRIT v. State (2004)

18 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

210200420102020decided

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 · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Coleman v. Thompson · Giglio 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he presence of a factual inconsistency, "without more, will not give rise to a due-process violation. Rather, at a minimum, “[t]o violate due process, an inconsistency must exist at the core of the prosecutor’s cases against the two defendants for the same crime,” and the inconsistency “must have rendered unreliable” the resulting conviction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In a nonweighing state such as Missouri, a finding of one valid aggravating circumstance renders harmless the conclusion that a second aggravating circumstance was constitutionally infirm.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.