Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 70 SW3D 103 - Ex Parte Graves

Ex Parte Graves’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
5
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Henderson v. Cockrell (2003), Brown v. State (2004)

11 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

310200220102020decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Gideon v. Wainwright · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Fay v. Noia

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

  1. “concern[s] the initial appointment of counsel and continuity of representation rather than the final product of representation”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “An applicant shall be represented by competent counsel ...”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]f a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus is filed after filing an initial application, a court may not consider the merits of or grant relief based on the subsequent application unless the application contains sufficient specific facts establishing that: (1) the current claims and issues have not been and could not have been presented previously in a timely initial application or in a previously considered application filed under this article or Article 11.07 because the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable on the date the applicant filed the previous application____”
    1 later decision 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.