Clark v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
850 F.3d 770 · 2017
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 2025
1 federal appellate · 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3599 · 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 Coleman v. Thompson · Pace v. Superintendent State Correctional Institution at Graterford · Ackermann v. United States · Gonzalez v. Crosby · Cullen v. Pinholster
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.
“To the extent that [petitioner's] Rule 60(b)(6) motion attacks not the substance of the federal court's resolution of the claim on the merits, but asserts that [his attorney] had a conflict of interest that resulted in a defect in the integrity of the proceedings, the motion is not an impermissible successive petition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gilkers v. Vannoy“extended the rationale of Martinez to Texas convictions when state procedural rules do not require the defendant to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim in an initial-review collateral proceeding but also do not provide a meaningful opportunity to raise such a claim on direct appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Russell“before the district court may accept a successive petition for filing, the court of appeals must determine that it presents a claim not previously raised that is sufficient to meet § 2244(b)(2) 's new-rule or actual-innocence provisions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gilkers v. Vannoy
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.