4 F. Supp. 2d 497 - Weeks v. Angelone’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2264 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Kotteakos v. United States · Coleman v. Thompson
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Surely Congress did not intend for a state to reap the benefits of the statute unless the petitioner whose case would be subject to the expedited review also enjoyed the “quid pro quo benefits” of the state’s enhanced right to counsel provisions during the post-conviction review process. Whether a state’s system satisfies the requirements of [Chapter 154] should be determined by examining the system as it existed at the time a petitioner first received appointment of counsel in the post-conviction process. It is at this time that a petitioner is first subject to the state’s procedures, and would therefore be entitled to enjoy the protections of the state’ system.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To meet the miscarriage of justice exception, the petitioner must show that a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent. Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 , 115 S.Ct. 851 , 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995). Those petitioners who are sentenced to death may also meet the exception by showing through clear and convincing evidence that but for a constitutional error, no reasonable juror would have found him eligible for the death penalty. Sawyer, 505 U.S. at 336 , 112 S.Ct. 2514 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Longworth v. Ozmint“a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Longworth v. Ozmint
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.