Case Citator › Wiggins v. Smith, Warden

Wiggins v. Smith, Warden

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courtsin review
280 of 286 flagged citations read · 97.9%
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
539 U.S. 510
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
280 of 286
Citing cases (total)
5,961
Treatment dates
2007
Limited by some courts · in review
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Wiggins v. Smith, Warden has been limited in one later opinion, which is listed below. The Sixth Circuit confined Wiggins in a procedural setting involving limited state court analysis.
More on how this was screened

Of 286 flagged citations, 280 were substantively read; the text needed to judge six citing opinions could not be verified, so they remain unread.

The treatments below are confirmed; unread citations could still change the overall status.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

5,961 later cases cite Wiggins v. Smith, Warden; 286 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; the progress bar above tracks how many have been read so far. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Wiggins v. Smith, Warden?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Sixth Circuit confined Wiggins's de novo review approach by applying modified AEDPA deference when a state court adjudicated the claim with little substantive analysis.

    Vasquez v. Jones · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · filed

    Although Wiggins v. Smith could be read to suggest that AEDPA deference applies only to issues that the state court actually considers on the merits, this circuit applies “modified AEDPA deference” in circumstances like this where the state court adjudicated the claim but with little analysis on the substantive constitutional issue.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Wiggins v. Smith, Warden and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace