Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 57 F.3d 451 - Sterling v. Scott

Sterling v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

57 F.3d 451 · 1995

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
2
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably Calderon v. United States District Court (1997), Hill v. Johnson (2000)

22 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

330199520002010decided

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.

Relationships

Applies 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 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 Coleman v. Thompson · Rose v. Lundy · Barefoot v. Estelle · Murray v. Giarratano · McFarland v. Scott

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

  1. “every subsequent stage of available judicial proceedings,”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “An application for writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that— (A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or (B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[w]e cannot agree that ... subsection 848(q)(8), encompass[es] ... any proceedings convened under the authority of a State.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.