Phillips v. Lane’s Empirical Analysis
787 F.2d 208 · 1986
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently January 2009 · most notably Prihoda v. McCaughtry (1990), United States v. Nichols (1995)
31 federal appellate · 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. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Wainwright v. Sykes · United States v. Frady · Drope v. Missouri · On Lee v. United States · United States v. Indiviglio
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Prejudice means more than not harmless; it means probably changed the outcome so that a miscarriage of justice would result if the procedural default were enforced.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“is not entitled to endless bites at the same apple or to a windfall second chance because of the district judge's error on another issue”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“domain of the rule is limited to cases where the facts are so closely balanced that the error might have made a difference in outcome.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Willis v. Aiken
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.