Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 905 F.2d 1318 - Howard v. Lewis

Howard v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis

905 F.2d 1318 · 1990

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
September 2023
most recently cited

45 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Pratt v. United States (1997), Harvey v. Horan (2002)

45 federal appellate · 1 district ·

5501990200020102020decided

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) · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Wainwright v. Sykes · Sanders v. United States · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · United States v. McConney

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

  1. “(1) the same ground presented in the subsequent application was determined adversely to the applicant on the prior application, (2) the prior determination was on the merits, and (3) the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits of the subsequent application.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[w]hile a court, in dismissing a petition because of state procedural default (and a failure to show cause and prejudice), is not determining the merits of the underlying claims, it is making a determination on the merits that the underlying claims will not be considered by a federal court for reasons of comity.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he dismissal of a federal habeas petition on the ground of state procedural default is a determination 'on the merits' for the purposes of the successive petition doctrine.”
    3 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.