Smith v. Sowders’s Empirical Analysis
848 F.2d 735 · 1988
Citation profile
39 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Lundy v. Campbell (1989), Miller v. Francis (2001)
39 federal appellate ·
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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brown v. Ohio · Missouri v. Hunter · Bibby v. United States · Pulley v. Harris · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] federal court is not free to issue a writ of habeas corpus 'on the basis of a perceived error of state law.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“State courts interpret state criminal statutes, and their interpretations are binding on federal courts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lowe v. U.S. · Banner v. Davis“A federal court is not free to issue a writ of habeas corpus 'on the basis of a perceived error of state law.' " Smith v. Sowders, 848 F.2d 735 , 738 (6th Cir.) (quoting Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 , 41 (1984)), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 866 (1988). See also Olsen v. McFaul, 843 F.2d 918, 933 (6th Cir.1988) ("For excellent reasons, claims that a state erred in interpreting or applying its own criminal law or procedural rules are almost always rejected as grounds for granting the writ of habeas corpus.”
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.