Bell Warden v. Cone’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
1,278 federal appellate · 270 district · 659 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3,937 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Wiggins v. Smith, Warden (2003), Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade (2003)
1,278 federal appellate · 270 district · 659 state decisions — followed in 41 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
reviewedCone v. Bell (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Witherspoon v. Illinois · McMann v. Richardson
Cited together with Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Cronic · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade
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 3,937 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A federal habeas court may issue the writ under the “contrary to” clause if the state court applies a rule different from the governing law set forth in our cases, or if it decides a case differently than we have done on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.... The court may grant relief under the “unreasonable application” clause if the state court correctly identifies the governing legal principle from our decisions but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular case.”
50 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Colvin v. Taylor · Tucker v. Ozmint“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
45 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
43 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. French v. Jones · Cyars v. Hofbauer
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.