Adams v. Bradshaw’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Ohio has a contemporaneous objection rule under which an appellant who fails to object waives later review of the issue unless plain error can be shown. Williams v. Bagley, 380 F.3d 932, 968 (6th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1003 , 125 S.Ct. 1939 , 161 L.Ed.2d 779 (2005) (citing State v. Smith, 89 Ohio St.3d 323, 332 , 731 N.E.2d 645 (2000)). The Sixth Circuit has held that Ohio’s contemporaneous objection rule constitutes an adequate and independent state ground barring federal review absent a showing of cause for the waiver and resulting prejudice. Id.; Hinkle v. Randle, 271 F.3d 239, 244 (6th Cir.2001); Stojetz v. Ishee, 2006 WL 328155 (S.D.Ohio Feb. 10, 2006). A state court’s review of an issue for plain error is considered by the Sixth Circuit as the enforcement of a procedural default. Williams, 380 F.3d at 968 ; Hinkle, 271 F.3d at 244 . The federal court, in determining whether a state court has relied on a procedural rule to bar review of an issue, examines the latest reasoned opinion of the state courts and presumes that later courts enforced the bar instead of rejecting the claim on the merits. Hinkle, 271 F.3d at 244 (citing Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803, 111 S.Ct. 2590 , 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991)).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Spence v. Sheets · 530 F. Supp. 2d 957 - Tolliver v. Sheets