Forest v. Delo’s Empirical Analysis
52 F.3d 716 · 1995
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently September 2019
3 federal appellate ·
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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Hill v. Lockhart · McCleskey v. Zant · Vasquez v. Hillery
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court must first fairly present his claims to the state courts in order to meet the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(b).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“show cause for his default and actual prejudice from the alleged constitutional violations or if he could demonstrate that failure to review the claim would result in a miscarriage of justice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cooksey v. Delo“there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mohammad v. Heston
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.