Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 486 U.S. 214 - Amadeo v. Zant

Amadeo v. Zant’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

741
cited by 741 later decisions
13
cited 13 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

361 federal appellate · 6 district · 44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 741 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably McCleskey v. Zant (1991), Banks v. Dretke Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Correctional Institutions Division (2004)

361 federal appellate · 6 district · 44 state decisions

385019881990200020102020decided

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

reviewedAmadeo v. Kemp (from Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier · Swain v. State of Alabama · Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.

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

  1. “the existence of cause for a procedural default must ordinarily turn on whether the prisoner can show that some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel's efforts to comply with the State's procedural rule.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “clearly-erroneous standard of review is a deferential one”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A showing that the factual or legal basis for a claim was not reasonably available to counsel or that some interference by officials made compliance impracticable, constitutes cause.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.