Beery v. Ault’s Empirical Analysis
312 F.3d 948 · 2002
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Harris v. Hutchinson · Taliani v. Chrans · Nichols v. Bowersox · Paul Kreutzer v. Michael S. Bowersox, Warden, Superintendent · State v. Williams
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“request for post conviction relief counsel . . . does not constitute a properly filed application for State post conviction . . . review.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“motion for appointment of ... state postconviction counsel does not contain the information required by [the Iowa statute] for postconviction petitions[,]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Voravongsa v. Wall“there is no federal precedent for treating a motion for appointment of counsel as a properly filed application for postconviction relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Voravongsa v. Wall
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.