Smith v. Baldwin’s Empirical Analysis
510 F.3d 1127 · 2007
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Hamilton v. Ayers (2009), Rocha v. Thaler (2010)
12 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Bruton v. United States · United States v. Bagley · Coleman v. Thompson · Kyles v. Whitley
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[b]ecause there is no constitutional right to an attorney in state post-conviction proceedings,” Coleman, 501 U.S. at 752 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , attorney ineffectiveness “in the post-conviction process is not considered cause for purposes of excusing the procedural default at that stage,” Manning, 224 F.3d at 1133 . As the Supreme Court has established, counsel acts as the petitioner’s agent and thus any attorney error in post-conviction proceedings is generally attributable to the petitioner himself. See Coleman, 501 U.S. at 752-53 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pinnell v. Belleque“Because we conclude that Smith has demonstrated neither actual innocence nor cause and prejudice, we cannot consider the merits of Smith's procedurally defaulted federal habeas petition.”), cert. denied sub nom. Smith v. Mills, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 37 , 172 L.Ed.2d 49 (2008); Richardson v. Dept. of Corrections, 198 F.3d 258 , 1999 WL 820221 , at (10th Cir. Oct. 14, 1999) (unpublished table decision) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rocha v. Thaler
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.