318 F. Supp. 2d 1004 - Protsman v. Pliler’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Murray v. Carrier · Rose v. Lundy · Michigan v. Long · Picard v. Connor
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.
“[T]he ultimate burden of proving the adequacy of the California state bar is upon the State of California.... Once the state has adequately pled the existence of an independent and adequate state procedural ground as an affirmative defense, the burden to place that defense in issue shifts to the petitioner. The petitioner may satisfy this burden by asserting specific factual allegations that demonstrate the inadequacy of the state procedure, including citation to authority-demonstrating inconsistent application of the rule. Once having done so, however, the ultimate burden is the state’s. - Accordingly, because it is the State who seeks dismissal based on the procedural bar, it is the State who must bear the burden of demonstrating that the bar is applicable-in this case that the state procedural rulé has'been regularly and consistently applied in habeas actions. '”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roybal v. Davis
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.