Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 44 F.3d 884 - Thomas v. Kerby

Thomas v. Kerby’s Empirical Analysis

44 F.3d 884 · 1995

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
4
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Cummings v. Evans (1998), Smith V. Secretary of New Mexico Department of Corrections (1995)

28 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

350199520002010decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Hill v. Lockhart · United States v. Dixon · United States v. Broce · Laughlin v. Internal Revenue Service · Johnson v. Derwinski

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

  1. “apparent on the face of the indictment and or the record existing at the time the plea was entered.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “do not conclusively demonstrate a single offense but, rather, raise at most a question of fact that might have been resolved in petitioner's favor if he had disputed the matter at a trial,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We review the district court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error,”
    2 later decisions 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.