Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 455 U.S. 591 - Sumner v. Mata

Sumner v. Mata’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

1,633
cited by 1,633 later decisions
36
cited 36 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
September 2019
most recently cited

846 federal appellate · 97 district · 47 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,633 later decisions (36 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2019 · most notably Wainwright v. Witt (1985), Miller v. Fenton (1985)

846 federal appellate · 97 district · 47 state decisions — followed in 13 states

86001982199020002010decided

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 Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Rose v. Lundy · Brewer v. Williams

Cited together with Sumner v. Mata · Strickland v. Washington · Marshall v. Lonberger · Townsend v. Sain · Neil v. Biggers

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 1,633 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “to show a high measure of deference to the factfindings made by the state courts.”
    28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Federal court may give different weight to the facts as found by the state court and may reach a different conclusion in light of the legal standard”
    27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““In any proceeding instituted in a Federal court by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue, made by a State court of competent jurisdiction in a proceeding to which the applicant for the writ and the State or an officer or agent thereof were parties, evidenced by a written finding, written opinion, or other reliable and adequate written indicia, shall be presumed to be correct____” (emphasis supplied). 2”
    18 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.