Barnes v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
58 F.3d 971 · 1995
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Russel William Burket v. Ronald Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections (2000), United States v. Ellis (1997)
41 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]o writ [of habeas corpus ] shall be granted on the basis of any allegation the facts of which petitioner had knowledge at the time of filing any previous petition”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“may rely on the truthfulness of his client and those whom he interviews in deciding how to pursue his investigation”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kandies v. Polk · Thomas v. Taylor“[a] basic tenet of federal habeas review is that a federal court does not have license to question a state court's finding of procedural default, if based upon an adequate and independent state ground,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. McNeill v. Polk · Gilbert v. Moore
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.