Danforth v. Minnesota’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
129 federal appellate · 17 district · 320 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 559 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Welch v. United States (2016), Munaf v. Geren (2008)
129 federal appellate · 17 district · 320 state decisions — followed in 42 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
reviewedthe decision below (from Supreme Court of Minnesota)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Crawford v. Washington · Gideon v. Wainwright · Mapp v. Ohio
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 559 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Originally, criminal defendants whose convictions were final were entitled to federal habeas relief only if the court that rendered the judgment under which they were in custody lacked jurisdiction to do so.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"This interest in uniformity, however, does not outweigh the general principle that States are independent sovereigns with plenary authority to make and enforce their own laws as long as they do not infringe on federal constitutional guarantees."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“does not in any way limit the authority of a state court, when reviewing its own state criminal convictions, to provide a remedy for a violation that is declared ‘nonretroactive’ under Teague.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Denisyuk v. State · State v. Mares
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.