Scrivner v. Tansy’s Empirical Analysis
68 F.3d 1234 · 1995
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Lennox v. Evans (1996), United States v. Castillo (1998)
29 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Kotteakos v. United States · Townsend v. Sain · Estelle v. McGuire
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even if disputed issues of fact are raised, a habeas petitioner is entitled to a hearing in federal court only if he did not receive a full and fair evidentiary hearing in a state court . . . which resulted in reliable findings.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“If no facts are disputed [in a habeas petition] and the issues can be resolved on the basis of the record and the law, no evidentiary hearing is required.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.