Hilton v. Braunskill’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
462 federal appellate · 368 district · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,185 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Nken v. Holder (2009), Wilkinson Director Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al. v. Dotson et al. (2005)
462 federal appellate · 368 district · 49 state decisions — followed in 17 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
reviewedRubin Carter and John Artis v. John J. Rafferty (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Bell v. Wolfish · Wainwright v. Sykes · United States v. Salerno · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Rose v. Lundy
Cited together with Nken v. Holder · Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Schlup v. Delo · United States v. Morrison
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 2,185 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”
152 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must accord a presumption of correctness to the initial custody determination made”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[f]ederal habeas corpus practice, as reflected by the decisions of this Court, indicates that a court has broad discretion in conditioning a judgment granting habeas relief. Federal courts are authorized, under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, to dispose of habeas corpus matters `as law and justice require.'”
15 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.