Sumner v. Mata’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
1,973 federal appellate · 228 district · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4,480 later decisions (99 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division (2003), District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983)
1,973 federal appellate · 228 district · 59 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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
reviewedMata v. Sumner (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Wainwright v. Sykes
Cited together with Strickland v. Washington · Townsend v. Sain · Wainwright v. Sykes · Sumner v. Mata · Cuyler v. Sullivan
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 4,480 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the burden shall rest upon the applicant to establish by convincing evidence that the factual determination by the State court was erroneous.”
127 later decisions quote this exact passage“hearing on the merits of a factual issue,”
26 later decisions quote this exact passage“Congress in § 2254(d) intended not only to minimize that inevitable friction [between state and federal courts] but to establish that the findings made by the state court system ‘shall be presumed to be correct’ unless one of seven conditions specifically set forth in § 2254(d) was found to exist by the federal habeas court. If none of those seven conditions were found to exist, or unless the habeas court concludes that the relevant state determination is not ‘fairly supported by the record,’ ‘the burden shall rest upon the applicant to establish by convincing evidence that the factual determination by the State court was erroneous.’ (Emphasis supplied.)”
25 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.