Rogers v. Howes’s Empirical Analysis
144 F.3d 990 · 1998
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably Combs v. Coyle (2000), Simpson v. Jones (2000)
19 federal appellate · 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 Coleman v. Thompson · Lindh v. Murphy · Ford v. Georgia · Rust v. Zent · Clemmons v. Sowders
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(D) Entitlement to Relief. The defendant has the burden of establishing entitlement to the relief requested. The Court may not grant relief to the defendant if the motion (2) alleges grounds for relief which were decided against the defendant in a prior appeal or proceeding under this sub-chapter, unless the defendant establishes that a retroactive change in the law has undermined the prior decision; (3) alleges grounds for relief, other than jurisdictional defects, which could have been raised on appeal from the conviction and sentence or in a prior motion under this sub-chapter, unless the defendant demonstrates (a) good cause for failure to raise such grounds on appeal or in the prior motion, and (b) actual prejudice from the alleged irregularities that support the claim for relief. As used in this sub-rule, “actual prejudice” means that, (i) in a conviction following a trial, but for the alleged error, the defendant would have had a reasonably likely chance of acquittal; (iii) in any case, the irregularity was so offensive to the maintenance of a sound judicial process that the conviction should not be allowed to stand regardless of its effect on the outcome of the case; The Court may waive the “good cause” requirement of sub-rule (D)(3)(a) if it concludes that there is a significant possibility that the defendant is innocent of the crime.”
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.