Monzo v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis
281 F.3d 568 · 2002
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Moldowan v. City of Warren (2009), Williams v. Bagley (2004)
38 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the court must determine that there is a state procedural rule with which the petitioner failed to comply; (2) the court must determine whether the state courts actually enforced the state procedural sanction; (3) the state procedural rule must have been an adequate and independent state procedural ground upon which the state could rely to foreclose review of a federal constitutional claim; and (4) if the court has determined that a state procedural rule was not complied with and that the rule was an adequate and independent state ground, then the petitioner must demonstrate that there was cause for his failure to follow the rule and that actual prejudice resulted from the alleged constitutional error.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[O]nly when ignored issues are clearly stronger than those presented, will the presumption of effective assistance of counsel be overcome,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A state procedural rule is adequate if it was ‘firmly established' and ‘regularly followed' by the time it was applied in this case.” Monzo v. Edwards, 281 F.3d 568, 577 (6th Cir.2002) (quoting Ford v. Georgia, 498 U.S. 411, 423-24 , 111 S.Ct. 850 , 112 L.Ed.2d 935 (1991)). Hicks v. Straub, 377 F.3d 538, 557 (6th Cir.2004) found that Mich. Ct. Rule 6.508(D)(3) was”
2 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.