Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 501 U.S. 797 - Ylst v. Nunnemaker

Ylst v. Nunnemaker’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

3,093
cited by 3,093 later decisions
24
cited 24 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

1,142 federal appellate · 145 district · 43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3,093 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Coleman v. Thompson (1991), Harrington v. Richter (2011)

1,142 federal appellate · 145 district · 43 state decisions

1.4k01991200020102020decided

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

reviewedNunnemaker v. Ylst (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier · Stone v. Powell

Cited together with Coleman v. Thompson · Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Harris v. Reed · Murray v. Carrier

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 3,093 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Where there has been one reasoned state judgment rejecting a federal claim, later unexplained orders upholding that judgment or rejecting the same claim rest upon the same ground.”
    102 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “it fairly appears that [that decision] rested primarily on federal law or was interwoven with federal law”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “it might be shown that, even though the last reasoned state-court opinion had relied upon a federal ground, the later appeal to the court that issued the unexplained order was plainly out of time, and that the latter court did not ordinarily waive such a procedural default without saying so.”
    7 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.