Walters v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently January 2016
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 · Harris v. Reed · Evitts v. Lucey · Vasquez v. Hillery · Copeland v. United States
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Delayed Petitions. A petition may be dismissed if it appears that the state of which the respondent is an officer has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to the petition by delay in its filing unless the petitioner shows that it is based on grounds of which he could not have had knowledge by the exercise of reasonable diligence before the circumstances prejudicial to the state occurred.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cockerham v. Cain · Ex Parte Carrio“shift[ ] to the petitioner to negate prejudice or show that the delay ‘is based on grounds of which he could not have had knowledge by the exercise of reasonable diligence before the circumstances prejudicial to the state occurred.' ” Id. . To meet the requirement that it make a particularized showing of prejudice in its ability to respond to the allegations, the State could”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the prejudice would not have resulted had the writ been filed at an earlier time, [t]he district court needs to determine when the prejudicial deaths occurred and any other circumstances that would show that Alabama would have been in a position to show the facts surrounding [the petitioner's] conviction had he only brought his claim earlier”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rideau v. Whitley
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.