Hernandez v. Starbuck’s Empirical Analysis
69 F.3d 1089 · 1995
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Scott v. Hern (2000), Dodds v. Richardson (2010)
34 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Rose v. Lundy · Picard v. Connor · Brewster v. Derwinski · Granberry v. Greer
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An application for a writ of habeas corpus ... shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“broad power to affirm [the district court] includes any ground for which there is record to support conclusions of law,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“not required to manufacture a party's argument on appeal when it has failed in its burden to draw our attention to the error below.”
2 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.