Goodrum v. Busby’s Empirical Analysis
824 F.3d 1188 · 2016
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · McCleskey v. Zant · Felker v. Turpin · Panetti v. Quarterman · Mayle v. Felix
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whether a petition is second or successive remains a threshold question under [section] 2244(b), just as it was under the pre-AEDPA regime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Anderson v. Divris“[t]he pre-AEDPA abuse-of-the-writ doctrine required courts to answer two distinct questions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Anderson v. Divris“referr[ed] to all [section] 2254 applications filed second or successively in time,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Anderson v. Divris
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.