Callins v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
89 F.3d 210 · 1996
Citation profile
19 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably Martinez v. Johnson (2001), Williams v. Thaler (2010)
19 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 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 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 · Teague v. Lane · Murray v. Carrier · Schlup v. Delo · McCleskey v. Zant
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“no error by habeas counsel can ever constitute cause for abusing the writ”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Callins contends that his habeas attorney's alleged ineffectiveness constitutes cause. We have already rejected that argument. '[C]ounsel's ineffectiveness will constitute cause only if it is an independent constitutional violation.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(2) If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that— (A) the claim relies on— (i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
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.