Longworth v. Ozmint’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2261 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Glasser v. United States · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Bagley
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To hold, as we do, that an ineffeetive-assistance-of-counsel claim asserted as cause for the procedural default of another claim can itself be procedurally defaulted is not to say that that procedural default may not itself be excused if the prisoner can satisfy the cause-and-prejudice standard with respect to that claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Whelchel v. Bazzle“There is a clear distinction between (1) knowing a statement was not made but testifying that it was made, and (2) honestly believing that the statement was implicit in the words spoken but, because it was based on interpretation, the statement is inadmissible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Longworth v. Ozmint“Hubert H. Powell, Jr. of the Spartanburg County Bar has the position of attorney for the parents of the Defendant, Richard W. Longworth.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Longworth v. Ozmint
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.