Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 852 F.2d 463 - Nevius v. Sumner

Nevius v. Sumner’s Empirical Analysis

852 F.2d 463 · 1988

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
3
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably United States v. Canoy (1994), Andrews v. Deland (1991)

47 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

44019881990200020102020decided

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 Batson v. Kentucky · Wainwright v. Sykes · Townsend v. Sain · Swain v. State of Alabama · Sumner v. Mata

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

  1. “The alleged remarks, however, are not part of any record in this case. They have not been presented to the state courts, either on appeal or during post-conviction proceedings. In habeas proceedings, the federal courts are not free to entertain new evidence that places the claim in a significantly different posture, when that evidence was never presented to the state courts.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A habeas corpus petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he has alleged facts which, if proven, would entitle him to relief and he did not receive a full and fair evidentiary hearing in a state court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “guarantees a criminal defendant a fundamental right to be clearly informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him.”
    2 later decisions 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.