Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 543 F.3d 326 - Smith v. Berghuis

Smith v. Berghuis’s Empirical Analysis

543 F.3d 326 · 2008

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

120200820102020decided

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

Relationships

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

Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Powers v. Ohio · Taylor v. Louisiana · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade · Duren v. Missouri

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

  1. ““(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.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “defendant must show that a distinctive group was underrepresented in his venire or jury pool, and that the underrepresentation was the result of systematic exclusion of the group from the jury selection process.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “has not mandated that a particular method be used to measure underrepresentation in Sixth Amendment challenges.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.