Hogan v. Hanks’s Empirical Analysis
97 F.3d 189 · 1996
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2022 · most notably Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense v. Padilla et al. (2004), O'Brien v. Dubois (1998)
36 federal appellate · 6 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(d) [a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States....”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“although the Supreme Court has frequently held that states must permit cross-examination that will undermine a witness's testimony, it has never held--or even suggested--that the longstanding rules restricting the use of specific instances and extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness's credibility pose constitutional problems.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] state's attorney general is a proper [respondent in a collateral attack] only if the petitioner is not then confined, but expects to be taken into custody.”
2 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.