Williams v. Groose’s Empirical Analysis
979 F.2d 1335 · 1992
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Stevens v. Redwing (1998), Aziz v. Tg Wright (1994)
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 Coleman v. Thompson · McCleskey v. Zant · Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission · Lockheed Shipbuilding Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs · Nathaniel Williams v. State of Missouri
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is based on facts or legal theories of which he had no knowledge when prosecuting his prior habeas petition”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“grounds for relief ... [that] were available but not relied [upon] in an earlier [habeas] petition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'assert[ed] no other facts or law unknown at the time of the first petition.'”
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.