Reyes v. Keane’s Empirical Analysis
118 F.3d 136 · 1997
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably David Aparicio v. Christopher Artuz (2001), Jones v. Vacco (1997)
8 federal appellate · 1 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 · Murray v. Carrier · Schlup v. Delo · Harris v. Reed
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While New York provides a mechanism for collaterally attacking a judgment that is in violation of- constitutional rights, see N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law § 440.10(1)(h) (McKinney 1994), any attempt by [the petitioner] to bring such a [§ 440.10] motion would be futile. Section 440.10(2)(e) of New York’s Criminal Procedure Law mandates that the state court deny any 440.10 motion where the defendant unjustifiably failed to argue such constitutional violation on direct appeal despite a sufficient record. See Levine v. Commissioner of Correctional Servs., 44 F.3d 121, 126 (2d Cir.1995) (refusing to conduct federal habeas review where New York’s appellate court found claim to be procedurally barred under § 440.10(2)(c)); People v. Santillana, 145 Misc.2d 567 , 547 N.Y.S.2d 981, 982 (Sup.Ct.1989) (barring claims pursuant to § 440.10(2)(c) that were not raised on direct appeal despite sufficient facts in record to allow defendant to do so.) ... [The petitioner] is therefore deemed to have exhausted his state remedies for the ineffective assistance claim by his procedural default on that issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bond v. Walker“Reyes’s 'unjustifiable failure' to raise the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal ... leads us to conclude that the same claim is barred from habeas review because Reyes cannot show cause for his failure to raise the claim at the state level.”). 208 . Cotto, 331 F.3d at 240 (quoting Lee, 534 U.S. at 376 , 122 S.Ct. 877 ) (emphasis added). 209 . Id. 210 . 2003 Decision at 7. 211 . Cotto, 331 F.3d at 242 . Accord Lee, 534 U.S. at 381 , 122 S.Ct. 877 . See 2003 Decision at 7 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies and the court to which the petitioner would be required to present his claims in order to meet the exhaustion requirement would now find the claims procedurally barred,”
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.