Sweet v. Delo’s Empirical Analysis
125 F.3d 1144 · 1997
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably Cargle v. Mullin (2003), Michael Jf Sanna v. Paul Dipaolo (2001)
45 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Coleman v. Thompson · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Teague v. Lane
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A motion to recall the mandate is a proper means of preserving an issue for habeas review only in very limited circumstances, as we explained in Nave .... [i]n particular, we noted that a motion to recall the mandate is not a proper method of raising claims of trial error or ineffective assistance of trial counsel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Leisure v. Bowersox“When a state court decides an issue on the merits despite a possible procedural default, no independent and adequate state ground bars consideration of that claim by a [federal] habeas court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Niederstadt v. Nixon“[r]aising a state-law claim in state court that is merely similar to the constitutional claim later pressed in a habeas action is insufficient to preserve the latter for federal review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. No. 98-2854
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.