Dillard v. Blackburn’s Empirical Analysis
780 F.2d 509 · 1986
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Rector v. Johnson (1997), Santana v. United States (1996)
12 federal appellate · 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Swain v. State of Alabama · Harris v. Nelson · Roberts v. Louisiana · Schlanger v. Seamans · McDonnell v. Estelle
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[F]ederal courts do not sit as courts of appeal and error for state court convictions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This is an intensely factual determination. Moreover, it relates particularly to facts that are largely within the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner. Thus, a court cannot rely on the state’s representations in ruling on such a motion, and must give the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present evidence in opposition to the dismissal motion. The notice requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) is therefore appropriate to such a case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McBride v. Sharpe“These rules are special ones governing collateral attacks on criminal convictions and are distinct from both the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This distinction is made because habeas corpus proceedings are a hybrid, being civil dispositions of already-resolved criminal matters. Thus, habeas cases are not automatically subject to the rules governing ordinary civil actions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Caristo v. Sullivan
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.