Coleman v. Saffle’s Empirical Analysis
869 F.2d 1377 · 1989
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably Payne v. Tennessee (1991), United States v. Rivera (1990)
66 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 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. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gideon v. Wainwright · Wainwright v. Sykes
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus ... need not be entertained ... unless the application alleges and is predicated on a factual or other ground not adjudicated on the hearing of the earlier application for the writ, and unless the court, justice, or judge is satisfied that the applicant has not on the earlier application deliberately withheld the newly asserted ground or otherwise abused the writ.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an unforeseeable judicial enlargement of a criminal statute, applied retroactively, operates precisely like an ex post facto law,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Qualls v. Kaiser · Stone v. Furlong
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.