Wilson v. Beard’s Empirical Analysis
589 F.3d 651 · 2009
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably Dennis v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (2016), Williams v. Beard (2011)
9 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Coleman v. Thompson · Giglio v. United States
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Commonwealth is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability in order to appeal the District Court’s decision to grant Wilson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.”) (citing, inter alia, Fed. R.App. P. 22(b)(3) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A 'reasonable probability' of a different result is shown when the government's suppression of evidence 'undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“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,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Davis
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.