Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 61 F.3d 410 - Sones v. Hargett

Sones v. Hargett’s Empirical Analysis

61 F.3d 410 · 1995

Citation profile

101
cited by 101 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 101 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably Dretke Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Correctional Institutions Division v. Haley (2004), Trest v. Cain (1997)

36 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

4901995200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Teague v. Lane · Rose v. Lundy

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

  1. “cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Counsel cannot be deficient for failing to press a frivolous point.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “presume the adequacy and independence of a state procedural rule when the state court expressly relies on it in deciding not to review a claim for collateral relief, . . . [t]he presumption of adequacy can be rebutted . . . if the state's procedural rule is not strictly or regularly followed.”
    1 later decision 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.