Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 520 U.S. 899 - Bracy v. Gramley

Bracy v. Gramley’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

1,266
cited by 1,266 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
32
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

346 federal appellate · 138 district · 235 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,266 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably Banks v. Dretke Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Correctional Institutions Division (2004), District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne (2009)

346 federal appellate · 138 district · 235 state decisions — followed in 32 states

57401997200020102020decided

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

reviewedUnited States v. Maloney (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 144 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Tumey v. State of Ohio · Withrow v. Larkin · 106 Ill. 2d 237 - People v. Collins · United States v. Armstrong · United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.

Cited together with Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Harris v. Nelson · Williams v. Taylor · In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites

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 1,266 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is ... entitled to relief, it is the duty of the court to provide the necessary facilities and procedures for an adequate inquiry.”
    22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “A party shall be entitled to invoke the processes of discovery available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if, and to the extent that, the judge in the exercise of his discretion and for good cause shown grants leave to do so, but not otherwise.”
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.