Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 492 F.3d 61 - Pike v. Guarino

Pike v. Guarino’s Empirical Analysis

492 F.3d 61 · 2007

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
1
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 34 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Teti v. Bender (2007), Yeboah-Sefah v. Ficco (2009)

29 federal appellate · 34 district · 1 state decisions

510200720102020decided

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

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Olano · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Johnson v. Zerbst · Williams v. Taylor

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

  1. “'the district court undert[ook] no independent factfinding [and] we are effectively in the same position as the district court vis-à-vis the state court record,' our review of a district court's denial of [Petitioner's] habeas petition is de novo.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “adjudicated on the merits in State court”
    4 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.