Parkhurst v. Shillinger’s Empirical Analysis
128 F.3d 1366 · 1997
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Allen v. Zavaras (2009), Casey v. Moore (2004)
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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)
Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Rose v. Lundy · Picard v. Connor · Engle v. Isaac · Evitts v. Lucey
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies because his claim was not fairly presented to the Wyoming courts, petitioner's claim is exhausted in reality because it is clear that his claim is now procedurally barred under Wyoming law.”). To overcome that procedural default, he would need to”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In all cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Smith v. Hargett“Where the reason a petitioner has exhausted his state remedies is because he has failed to comply with a state procedural requirement for bringing the claim, there is a further and separate bar to federal review, namely procedural default.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Hargett
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.