Anderson v. Harless’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
679 federal appellate · 158 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,791 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably Yohey v. Collins (1993), Duncan v. Henry (1995)
679 federal appellate · 158 district · 12 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 Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Rose v. Lundy · Sandstrom v. Montana · Picard v. Connor · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen
Cited together with Picard v. Connor · Rose v. Lundy · Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · 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 1,791 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is not enough that all the facts necessary to support the federal claim were before the state courts, or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was made.”
63 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Snethen v. Nix · Dyer v. Ponte“We doubt that a defendant's citation to a state-court decision predicated solely on state law ordinarily will be sufficient to fairly apprise a reviewing court of a potential federal claim merely because the defendant in the cited case advanced a federal claim.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“predicated solely on state law in which no federal issues were decided, but in which the defendant had argued broadly that failure to properly instruct a jury violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
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.