Thomas v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis
945 F.2d 1119 · 1991
Citation profile
123 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 165 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Todd Hiivala v. Tana Wood (1999), Carriger v. Lewis (1992)
123 federal appellate · 10 district ·
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 Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Michigan v. Long · Harris v. Reed · Ylst v. Nunnemaker
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 165 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“federal habeas review is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the procedural default and actual prejudice, or demonstrate that the failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The independent and adequate state ground doctrine prohibits the federal courts from addressing the habeas corpus claims of state prisoners when a state-law default prevented the state courts from reaching the merits of the federal claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rigsby v. Avenenti“is actual harm resulting from the alleged constitutional violation. Thomas v. Lewis, 945 F.2d 1119 , 1123 (9th Cir.1991). The”
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.