Calderon v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
611 federal appellate · 48 district · 109 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,452 later decisions (33 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Harrington v. Richter (2011), George Duncan Superintendent Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker (2001)
611 federal appellate · 48 district · 109 state decisions — followed in 22 states
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
reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Wainwright v. Sykes · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Teague v. Lane
Cited together with Schlup v. Delo · Coleman v. Thompson · Strickland v. Washington · Sawyer v. Whitley · 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 1,452 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“exercised only in extraordinary circumstances”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In a § 2254 case, a prisoner’s motion to recall the mandate on the basis of the merits of the underlying decision can be regarded as a second or successive application for purposes of § 2244(b). Otherwise, petitioners could evade the bar against relitigation of claims presented in a prior application, § 2244(b)(1), or the bar against litigation of claims not presented in a prior application, § 2244(b)(2). If the court grants such a motion, its action is subject to AEDPA irrespective of whether the motion is based on old claims (in which case § 2244(b)(1) would apply) or new ones (in which case § 2244(b)(2) would apply).”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Allen v. Massie · In re Byrd“Federal habeas review of state convictions frustrates both the States’ sovereign power to punish offenders and their good-faith attempts to honor constitutional rights. It disturbs the State’s significant interest in repose for concluded litigation, denies society the right to punish some admitted offenders, and intrudes on state sovereignty to a degree matched by few exercises of federal judicial authority.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Byrd · Holsey v. Warden
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.