Luton v. Grandison’s Empirical Analysis
44 F.3d 626 · 1994
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier · United States v. Frady
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a prerequisite to federal habeas review, a petitioner must exhaust state remedies and present the same legal theories and factual bases to the state courts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Frederickson v. Wood“the errors of which he complains 'worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carroll v. Schriro
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.