Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 892 F.2d 331 - Smith v. Freeman

Smith v. Freeman’s Empirical Analysis

892 F.2d 331 · 1989

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
October 2016
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably Zettlemoyer v. Fulcomer (1991), Holloway v. Horn (2004)

34 federal appellate · 2 district ·

3501989199020002010decided

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

Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · Wainwright v. Sykes · Townsend v. Sain · Murray v. Carrier · United States v. Frady

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

  1. “(2) that the fact finding procedure employed by the state court was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing; (3) that the material facts were not adequately developed at the state court hearing; (6) that the applicant did not receive a full, fair and adequate hearing in the state court proceeding; (8) or ... the federal court in consideration of [the] record ... concludes that such factual determination is not fairly supported by the record.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[A] procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case '”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Where the facts are in dispute, the federal court in habeas corpus must hold an evidentiary hearing if the habeas applicant did not receive a full and fair evidentiary hearing in a state court, either at the time of the trial or in a collateral proceeding.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.