Benchoff v. Colleran’s Empirical Analysis
404 F.3d 812 · 2005
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Stewart v. United States (2011), Goldblum v. Klem (2007)
15 federal appellate · 3 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. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Rose v. Lundy · Sanders v. United States · McCleskey v. Zant
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(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.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a subsequent petition . . . [wa]s clearly not a 'second or successive petition' within the meaning of [section] 2244 if the claim had not arisen or could not have been raised at the time of the prior petition.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“concluded] that the doctrine [of ‘abuse of the writ’] retains vitality as a tool for interpreting the term 'second or successive’ under § 2244.” Id. at 813. 7 . Rule 9 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases provides: “Before presenting a second or successive petition, the petitioner must obtain an order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3) and (4).” 28 U.S.C. foil. § 2254, Rule 9 (emphases added).”
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.