597 F. Supp. 11 - Stepney v. Lopes’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 2012
3 district ·
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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2251 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Hensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial Dist., Santa Clara Cty. · Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. · State v. Stepney · In Re Shuttlesworth · Francis T. Glynn v. Robert Donnelly, John M. Farrell v. Robert Donnelly
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Are substantial claims set forth in the petition? 2. Is there a demonstrated likelihood the petition will prevail? 3. Are there extraordinary circumstances attending the petitioner’s situation which would require the grant in order to make the writ of habeas corpus effective, presumably if granted? In short, is this case distinguishable from other habeas corpus cases?”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.