Williams v. Coyle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, the federal court must determine whether there is a state procedural rule that is applicable to the petitioner’s claim and whether the petitioner failed to comply with that rule. Second, the federal court must determine whether the state courts actually enforced the state procedural sanction — that is, whether the state courts actually based their decisions on the procedural rule. Third, the federal court must decide whether the state procedural rule is an adequate and independent state ground on which the state can rely to foreclose federal review of a federal constitutional claim.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wickline v. Mitchell · Smith v. Ohio, Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

2. “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceedings.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Maples v. Stegall · 594 F. Supp. 2d 802 - Davis v. Booker

3. “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.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 317 F. Supp. 2d 766 - Tucker v. Renico · 36 F. App'x 785 - Isabell v. Curtis