Sadowski v. Grounds’s Empirical Analysis
2019
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Coleman v. Thompson · Harmelin v. Michigan · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade · Pennsylvania v. Finley
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Petitioner has not explained how any alleged ineffectiveness of trial or appellate counsel caused Petitioner to fail to exhaust his claims in state habeas proceedings before filing the instant Petitioner ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Storey's appellate counsel's performance has nothing to do with Storey's own failure to exhaust his claims by filing a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.