Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 562 U.S. 307 - Walker v. Martin

Walker v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis

562 U.S. 307 · 2011

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
19
cited 19 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably 132 S. Ct. 1309 - Martinez v. Ryan (2012), Martinez v. Ryan (2012)

19 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

60020112020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Harrington v. Richter · Thornburgh v. Abbott

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

  1. “[a] federal habeas court will not review a claim rejected by a state court 'if the decision of [the state] court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “firmly established and regularly followed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] state procedural bar may count as an adequate and independent ground for denying a federal habeas petition even if the state court had discretion to reach the merits despite the default.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.