Caver v. Straub’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “First, the court must determine that there is a state procedural rule that is applicable to the petitioner’s claim and that the petitioner failed to comply with the rule ... Second, the court must decide whether the state courts actually enforced the state procedural sanction ... Third, the court must decide whether the state procedural forfeiture is an “adequate and independent” state ground on which the state can rely to foreclose review of a federal constitutional claim ... [Fourth,] the petitioner must demonstrate under [Wainwright v.] Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 , 97 S.Ct. 2497 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977) that there was “cause” for him not to follow the procedural rule and that he was actually prejudiced by the alleged constitutional error.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Eskridge v. Konteh · 603 F. Supp. 2d 960 - Matthews v. Simpson

2. “As the Supreme Court has recently observed, it is difficult to demonstrate that an appellate attorney has violated the performance prong where the attorney presents one argument on appeal rather than another. In such cases, the petitioner must demonstrate that the issue not presented `was clearly stronger than issues that counsel did present.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 342 F. Supp. 2d 677 - Alexander v. Smith · Franklin v. Anderson

3. “Our review of the district court’s factual findings is highly deferential. We start from the premise that a district court’s factual findings in a habeas proceeding are reviewed for clear error. Lucas v. O’Dea, 179 F.3d 412 , 416 (6th Cir. 1999). “‘Clear error’ occurs only when [the panel is] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. If there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous,” United States v. Kellams, 26 F.3d 646 , 648 (6th Cir. 1994). We are also mindful that in a habeas proceeding the petitioner “has the burden of establishing his right to federal habeas relief and of proving all facts necessary to show a constitutional violation.” Romine v. Head, 253 F.3d 1349 , 1357 (11th Cir. 2001).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Black v. Carpenter