Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 537 U.S. 3 - Early v. Packer

Early v. Packer’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

1,847
cited by 1,847 later decisions
19
cited 19 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

786 federal appellate · 122 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,847 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Harrington v. Richter (2011), Rompilla v. Beard (2005)

786 federal appellate · 122 district · 6 state decisions

1.1k0200220102020decided

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

reviewedPacker v. Hill (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

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

Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Allen v. United States · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Lowenfield v. Phelps

Cited together with Williams v. Taylor · Strickland v. Washington · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Brecht v. Abrahamson

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 1,847 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of this Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from our precedent.”
    39 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts them.”
    23 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(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.”
    16 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.