Yarborough v. Alvarado’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
989 federal appellate · 146 district · 428 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,657 later decisions (54 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2025 · most notably Harrington v. Richter (2011), Harrington v. Richter (2011)
989 federal appellate · 146 district · 428 state decisions — followed in 35 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
reviewedAlvarado v. Hickman (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Williams v. Taylor · Teague v. Lane · Gault
Cited together with Williams v. Taylor · Strickland v. Washington · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden
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 2,657 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the range of reasonable judgment can depend in part on the nature of the relevant rule. If a legal rule is specific, the range may be narrow. Applications of the rule may be plainly correct or incorrect. Other rules are more general, and their meaning must emerge in application over the course of time. Applying a general standard to a specific case can demand a substantial element of judgment. As a result, evaluating whether a rule application was unreasonable requires considering the rule’s specificity. The more general the rule, the more leeway courts have in reaching outcomes in case-by-case determinations.”
108 later decisions quote this exact passage“to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court's decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]f a habeas court must extend a rationale before it can apply to the facts at hand,”
5 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.