Bland v. Sirmons’s Empirical Analysis
459 F.3d 999 · 2006
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Hooks v. Workman (2012), Byrd v. Workman (2011)
39 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
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
reviewedthe decision below (from Oklahoma Western District Court)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Williams v. Taylor · Kotteakos v. United States · Coleman v. Thompson
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e then consider whether the state court decision was ‘contrary to’ or an ‘unreasonable application of that clearly established federal law----A decision is ‘contrary to’ clearly established federal law for purposes of § 2254 if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases or if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme Court] and nevertheless arrives at a result different from the result reached by the Supreme Court.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Welch v. Workman · Welch v. Workman“'[F]air presentation' requires more than presenting ... 'all the facts necessary to support the federal claim'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“cause for the default and actual prejudice”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Grant v. Royal · Smith v. Allbaugh
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.