Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 722 F.2d 1048 - Williams v. Kullman

Williams v. Kullman’s Empirical Analysis

722 F.2d 1048 · 1983

Citation profile

94
cited by 94 later decisions
2
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably 234 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Hodges (2009), Roldan v. Racette (1993)

17 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

27019831990200020102020decided

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) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Conley v. Gibson · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Haines v. Kerner

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

  1. “should review habeas petitions with a lenient eye, allowing borderline cases to proceed.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[d]espite our firm conviction that the pleading requirements in habeas corpus proceedings should not be overly technical and stringent, it would be unwise to saddle district judges with the burden of reading through voluminous records and transcripts in every case”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “summary dismissal of a habeas petition prior to requiring a response is appropriate only where the petition indicates `that petitioner can prove no set of facts to support a claim entitling him to relief'”
    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.