Felker v. Turpin’s Empirical Analysis
83 F.3d 1303 · 1996
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably Felker v. Turpin (1996), Anthony Keith Johnson v. State of Alabama (2001)
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2261 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Murray v. Carrier · Estelle v. McGuire · Schlup v. Delo · Sullivan v. Louisiana
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact-finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Hill · In Re: Pedro Medina“(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.