Carpenter v. Mohr’s Empirical Analysis
163 F.3d 938 · 1998
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Edwards Warden v. Carpenter (2000), State v. Montgomery (Slip Opinion) (2016)
12 federal appellate · 3 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · North Carolina v. Alford · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under Maupin v. Smith, 785 F.2d 135, 138 (6th Cir.1986), the Sixth Circuit utilizes a four part analysis when a state argues that a federal habeas claim has been procedurally defaulted in state court. This court determines: 1) whether there is a procedural rule that is applicable to the petitioner’s claim and whether the petitioner failed to follow this rule; 2) whether the state courts actually enforced the state procedural rule; 3) whether the state procedural rule is an adequate and independent state ground to foreclose federal relief; and if so 4) the petitioner must establish cause for his failure to follow the rale and prejudice by the alleged constitutional error. Id.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f a petitioner could raise his ineffective assistance claim for the first time on federal habeas in order to show cause for a procedural default, the federal habeas court would find itself in the anomalous position of adjudicating an unexhausted constitutional claim for which state court review might still be available.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the exhaustion requirement is satisfied even if a claim was procedurally defaulted in state court, because in such cases there are no longer remedies available for the petitioner to exhaust.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thomas v. Woolum
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.