Shaw v. Delo’s Empirical Analysis

971 F.2d 181 · 1992

Citation profile

cited by 45 later decisions

September 2017

most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Abernathy v. Superior Hardwoods, Inc. (1983), Nave v. Delo (1995)

25 federal appellate · 2 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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Murray v. Carrier · Sanders v. United States · Ake v. Oklahoma · 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“by showing no aggravating circumstance existed, or by showing some other condition of eligibility was not met. Additional mitigating evidence does not satisfy the standard.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Bannister v. Delo · Nave v. Delo
“contentions do not affect his eligibility for the death penalty because they relate to mitigating rather than aggravating factors.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Bannister v. Delo · Nave v. Delo
“Repetitive claims that have been “raised and decided adversely on the merits in an earlier petition” are successive. Olds v. Armontrout, 919 F.2d 1331, 1332 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, [ 500 U.S. 908 , 111 S.Ct. 1692 , 114 L.Ed.2d 86 (1991)]; see also Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15-17 , 83 S.Ct. 1068, 1077-1078 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963). New claims that were not raised in an earlier petition are potentially abusive. McCleskey v. Zant, [ 499 U.S. 467 , 111 S.Ct. 1454 , 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991)]; Olds, 919 F.2d at 1332 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Rehbein v. Dahm

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.