Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 774 F.2d 957 - Richmond v. Ricketts

Richmond v. Ricketts’s Empirical Analysis

774 F.2d 957 · 1985

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
1
states following
April 2012
most recently cited

54 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably Harris v. Vasquez (1990), Lincoln v. Sunn (1987)

54 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

3701985199020002010decided

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. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 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 Townsend v. Sain · Sanders v. United States · Sumner v. Mata · Wong Doo v. United States · State v. Richmond

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

  1. “A federal court need not consider habeas claims previously unlitigated in federal court if it determines that the petitioner (1) made a conscious decision deliberately to withhold them from a prior petition, (2) is pursuing needless piecemeal litigation, or (3) has raised the claim only to vex, harass, or delay.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) the same ground presented in the subsequent application was determined adversely to the applicant on the prior application, (2) the prior determination was on the merits, and (3) the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits of the subsequent application.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Richmond's petition does not constitute an abuse of the writ.”
    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.