Munson v. Kapture’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate ·

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

1. “(1) the petitioner failed to comply with an applicable state procedural rule; (2) the state courts actually enforced the state procedural sanction; (3) the state procedural bar provides an adequate and independent state ground by which the state has foreclosed federal review; and (4) if procedurally barred, whether the petitioner can demonstrate “cause” and “prejudice”,” or a “fundamental miscarriage of justice” to excuse the default.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stone v. Moore · Hanna v. Ishee

2. “[f]or purposes of procedural default, the “state judgment” with which we are concerned is “the last explained, state court judgment.” Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 , 805 [ 111 S.Ct. 2590 , 115 L.Ed.2d 706 ] (1991). Munson argues that the last explained state court judgment is the trial court’s opinion denying his post-conviction motion for relief. In that opinion, the court relied on procedural default in rejecting only one of his claims; it denied the other claims on their merits. Contrary to Munson’s assertion, however, the last explained state court judgment in this case is the Michigan Supreme Court’s order denying review of Munson’s claims based upon his failure to comply with Rule 6.508(D). We have held that orders such as that issued by the Michigan Supreme Court constitute “explained” state court judgments for purposes of procedural default. See, e.g., Simpson v. Jones, 238 F.3d 399 , 407-08 (6th Cir.2000) (holding that an order issued by the Michigan Supreme Court stating that the petitioner had “failed to ‘meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D)’” — though “brief’ — constituted the last explained state court judgment in the case).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guilmette v. Howes · Alexander v. Smith