Williams v. Calderon’s Empirical Analysis
83 F.3d 281 · 1996
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2261 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · McCleskey v. Zant · Sawyer v. Whitley · Great State Beverages, Inc. v. Wenners · Idaho v. Wright
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] certificate of appealability may issue ... only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lennox v. Evans · Reyes v. Keane“[t]he standard for obtaining a certfficate of appealabffity under the Act is more demanding than the standard for obtaining a {CPC] under the law as it existed prior to enactment of the Act.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We hold that the district court had jurisdiction to entertain Williams’s second petition without first obtaining an authorization order from this court under section 2244(b)(3)(A) of the Act, because we treat the entirety of Williams’s second petition filed in the district court as having been filed before the Act was signed into law.”
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.