Ruiz v. Quarterman’s Empirical Analysis
504 F.3d 523 · 2007
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Phelps v. Alameida (2009), Balentine v. Thaler (2010)
16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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)
Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Michigan v. Long · Engle v. Isaac · Gonzalez v. Crosby
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) the factual or legal basis for an applicant’s current claims must have been unavailable as to all of his previous applications; and 2) the specific facts alleged, if established, would constitute a constitutional violation that would likely require relief from either the conviction or sentence.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In deciding whether the CCA refused relief upon an independent state-law ground or upon the merits of Ruiz’s petition we are aided by the bright light of Michigan v. Long[.] ... This settled principle gives to state courts control over the federal review of their opinions. It has become a rote rule at the fingertips of every writing member of state courts of last resort — where studied ambiguity or clarity in the decisional footing is an art form and an absence of clarity in an opinion is seldom inadvertent. Calibrated uncertainty can play a mediating role in garnering support for an outcome. To the point, that the CCA did not make clear that its decision rested on an independent state ground opens the merits of Ruiz’s Wiggins claim to federal review. At best, the CCA did not make clear whether it relied on state or federal law in dismissing Ruiz’s application. As the CCA is keenly aware, its choice of language was made against a background legal standard- — -which directs the CCA in either granting an application for consideration of subsequent claims or dismissing that application as an abuse of the writ — that is interwoven with federal law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Texas law precludes [Ruiz] from obtaining a ruling on the merits of his currently unexhausted claims ... in a successive state habeas corpus application”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Balentine v. Thaler · Ex parte Ruiz
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.