Lewis v. Sternes’s Empirical Analysis
390 F.3d 1019 · 2004
Citation profile
45 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Pole v. Randolph (2009), Bintz v. Bertrand (2005)
45 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Batson v. Kentucky · Haines v. Kerner · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Cause for a default is ordinarily established by showing that some type of “external impediment” prevented the petitioner from presenting his claim. Lewis v. Sternes, 390 F.3d 1019 , 1026 (7th Cir.2004). Prejudice is established by showing that the violation of the petitioner’s federal rights “worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions.” Id.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n assertion that one's counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue particular constitutional issues is a claim separate and independent of those issues.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Wilkinson v. Cowan, 231 F.3d 347 , 352 (7th Cir.2000), we held that when the Illinois Appellate Court, in response to a Finley motion, had not only granted an attorney’s motion to withdraw but also summarily affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner’s post-conviction petition, the court had rendered a merits judgment as to each of the claims asserted in that petition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Woods v. Schwartz
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.