Greene v. Lambert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “[E]xhaustion does not require repeated as sertions if a federal claim is actually considered at least once on the merits by the highest state court.... If the Washington Supreme Court declined to apply the procedural bar that was available to it and adjudicated the claim on the merits, then the claim may proceed.”). 2 . The government points to a Second Circuit decision that stated that”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wilson v. Knowles · Wilson v. Knowles

2. “Harris involved a so-called “postcard denial” from the California Supreme Court. We held in that case that the state court’s denial of a habeas petition on procedural grounds did not exhaust state remedies, but (citing Brown, 344 U.S. at 449 n. 3, 73 S.Ct. 397 , 97 L.Ed. 469 ) that the state court’s denial of a habeas petition on the merits did exhaust state remedies. Harris, 500 F.2d at 1128-29 . We construed a bare postcard denial from the California Supreme Court as a decision on the merits, for purposes of the exhaustion requirement, unless that court expressly relied on a procedural bar. Id. In other words, although the state supreme court’s response was ambiguous, we adopted a plausible construction that it acted on the merits of a claim presented to it. We have not overruled Harris.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chambers v. McDaniel

3. “In Greene v. Lambert, we noted that: Because Petitioner’s federal claims were raised for the first time in [a discretionary motion for reconsideration,] the Washington Supreme Court would have been within its discretion simply to deny the motion or to dismiss it without comment. Such a dismissal would have brought Petitioner’s claim squarely within the reach of Castille, 489 U.S. at 351 , 109 S.Ct. 1056 (holding that issues raised for the first time in purely discretionary motions are not exhausted for federal habeas purposes when those motions are dismissed without comment).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Casey v. Moore