Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 300 F.3d 1213 - Hamm v. Saffle

Hamm v. Saffle’s Empirical Analysis

300 F.3d 1213 · 2002

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
September 2016
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Schlup v. Delo · Lorenzo Montez v. Mark McKinna · McIntosh v. United States Parole Commission · Steele v. Young

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

  1. “[the] court cannot address claims that were defaulted in state court on independent and adequate state procedural grounds ‘unless [petitioner] can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violations 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
  2. “Petitions under § 2241 are used to attack the execution of a sentence, in contrast to § 2254 habeas and § 2255 proceedings, which are used to collaterally attack the validity of a conviction and sentence.”
    1 later decision 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.