Buffalo v. Sunn’s Empirical Analysis
854 F.2d 1158 · 1988
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Todd Hiivala v. Tana Wood (1999), Tinsley v. Borg (1990)
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 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 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier · United States v. Frady · Rose v. Lundy
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.
“[a]n appellate court ... may give relief if state remedies are exhausted by the time it acts....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A district court conducting federal habeas review should not ordinarily attempt to resolve contested issues of fact based on affidavits alone unless there is other evidence in the record dispositive of the issue or unless the state court has made the relevant factual findings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roy v. Lampert“[i]n a habeas case, when there are only conflicting affidavits regarding the facts underlying the issue of cause, the district court must hold an evidentiary hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roy v. Lampert
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.