Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 28 F.3d 1005 - Wells v. Maass

Wells v. Maass’s Empirical Analysis

28 F.3d 1005 · 1994

Citation profile

102
cited by 102 later decisions
February 2019
most recently cited

50 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Koerner v. Grigas (2003), Robinson v. Ignacio (2004)

50 federal appellate · 3 district ·

680199420002010decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Murray v. Carrier · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen · Raphan 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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a state rule must be clear, consistently applied, and well-established at the time of the petitioner's purported default.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When a state prisoner has defaulted a claim by violating a state procedural rule which would constitute adequate and independent grounds to bar direct review in the U.S. Supreme Court, he may not raise the claim in federal habeas, absent a showing of cause and prejudice or actual innocence.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he procedural default doctrine is a specific application of the general adequate and independent state grounds doctrine.”
    3 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.