Ochoa v. Sirmons’s Empirical Analysis
485 F.3d 538 · 2007
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Hooks v. Workman (2012), Douglas v. Workman (2009)
20 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Atkins v. Virginia · Penry v. Lynaugh · Gonzalez v. Crosby · Cooper v. Oklahoma · Bennett v. United States
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless ... the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This statutory mandate does not direct the appellate court to engage in a preliminary merits assessment. Rather, it focuses our inquiry solely on the conditions specified in § 2244(b) that justify raising a new habeas claim ....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Fleur · In re Williams“By “prima facie showing” we understand (without guidance in the statutory language or history or case law) simply a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the district court. All that we usually have before us in ruling on such an applica tion, which we must do under a tight deadline (see 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(D)), is the application itself and documents required to be attached to it, consisting of the previous motions and opinions in the case. We do not usually have a response from the government, though such a response is authorized.... If in light of the documents submitted with the application it appears reasonably likely that the application satisfies the stringent requirements for the filing of a second or successive petition, we shall grant the application.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Case v. Hatch · Case v. Hatch
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.