Bell v. Cone’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
141 federal appellate · 15 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 321 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Cone v. Bell (2009), Beckles v. United States (2017)
141 federal appellate · 15 district · 21 state decisions
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
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Gregg v. Georgia · Ring v. Arizona · Lindh v. Murphy · Bell Warden v. Cone
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 321 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Payne v. Bell · Bell-Bey v. Roper“dictates a highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Payne v. Bell · Gonzales v. Mize““Heinous” means extremely wicked or shockingly evil. “Atrocious” means outrageously wicked and vile. “Cruel” means designed to inflict a high degree of pain, utter indifference to, or enjoyment of, the suffering of others, pitiless.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Payne v. Bell · Dickerson v. State
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.