Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 797 F.2d 1335 - Passman v. Blackburn

Passman v. Blackburn’s Empirical Analysis

797 F.2d 1335 · 1986

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2012 · most notably McCleskey v. Zant (1991), Greer v. Miller (1987)

17 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

2201986199020002010decided

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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Wainwright v. Sykes · Townsend v. Sain · Manson v. Brathwaite · 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In light of Sanders , there is no room in habe-as corpus adjudications for an abuse of the writ doctrine to a pro se petitioner who did not subjectively know about a particular legal claim when an earlier petition was filed. A pro se petitioner must, at the least, knowingly withhold a claim in order for the abuse of the writ doctrine to apply.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “'call[ed] attention to' " the defendant's postarrest silence. Doyle, supra, 426 U.S., at 619, 96 S.Ct., at 2245 (citation omitted). "The standard is strict; virtually any description of a defendant's silence following arrest and a Miranda warning will constitute a Doyle violation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Successive petitions. A second or successive petition may be dismissed ... if new and different grounds are alleged, the judge finds that the failure of the petitioner to assert those grounds in a prior petition constituted an abuse of the writ.”
    1 later decision 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.