Banister v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
2020
Citation profile
1 district · 5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2107 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Foman v. Davis · Hickman v. Taylor · Preiser v. Rodriguez
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]fter AEDPA as before, . . . Rule 59(e) motions are not second or successive petitions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Anderson v. Divris“2244(b)'s threshold inquiry into whether an application is 'second or successive'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Anderson v. Divris“'[S]econd or successive' . . . takes its full meaning from our case law . . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Anderson v. Divris
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.