Walker v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Thornburgh v. Abbott · Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co.
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“firmly established and regularly followed.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] state procedural bar may count as an adequate and independent ground for denying a federal habeas petition even if the state court had discretion to reach the merits despite the default.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fratta v. Davis · Johnson v. Lee“a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment.”
2 later decisions 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.