Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 45 F.3d 1395 - Klein v. Neal

Klein v. Neal’s Empirical Analysis

45 F.3d 1395 · 1995

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
1
states following
July 2021
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably English v. Cody (1998), Amos v. Scott (1995)

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

2301995200020102020decided

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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Haines v. Kerner · Coleman v. Thompson · Hill v. Lockhart · Wainwright v. Sykes

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

  1. “objective factor external to the defense.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In all cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[I]t is apparent [petitioner]'s assertions he is not a lawyer and he was unaware of [the Colorado collateral attack] statute's existence are insufficient as a matter of law to constitute 'cause.' ") 2 He raises this claim as an independent issue which he entitles "Actual Innocence of the Appellant.”
    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.