Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 831 F.2d 946 - Messer v. Kemp

Messer v. Kemp’s Empirical Analysis

831 F.2d 946 · 1987

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
states following
September 2009
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently September 2009 · most notably Clisby v. Jones (1992), Baxter v. Thomas (1995)

30 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

200198719902000decided

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. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Sanders v. United States · Caldwell v. Mississippi · Ake v. Oklahoma · Barefoot v. Estelle · McCleskey v. Kemp

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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Because we conclude, as a matter of law, that the record in this case fails to disclose [the alleged constitutional violation], our 'ends of justice' analysis need not proceed any further.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In cases such as this, in which the trial court denied a criminal defendant court-appointed psychiatric assistance prior to the Supreme Court's determination in Ake, but to which Ake's standard applies, the question presented is whether, 'upon review of the entire record, [petitioner] could have made a threshold showing under Ake "that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial ....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Successive Petitions. A second or successive petition may be dismissed if the judge finds that it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits or, 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 dissent

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.