Teague v. Lane’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
3,787 federal appellate · 661 district · 1,987 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10,274 later decisions (243 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Blakely v. Washington (2004), Williams v. Taylor (2000)
3,787 federal appellate · 661 district · 1,987 state decisions — followed in 50 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. A case is still cited after being overruled — to note the reversal, distinguish it, or in dissent. 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
reviewedTeague v. Lane (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Batson v. Kentucky
Cited together with Strickland v. Washington · Penry v. Lynaugh · Coleman v. Thompson · Williams v. Taylor · Saffle v. Parks
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 10,274 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.”
528 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe.”
113 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final; (2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action; (3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.