Wolfe v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
565 F.3d 140 · 2009
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Walker v. Kelly (2009), Sloas v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (2010)
17 federal appellate · 1 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Bagley · Coleman v. Thompson
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreason able application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jones v. Seifert“[a] procedural default is excusable under the cause and prejudice standard when the petitioner demonstrates (1) “that some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel’s efforts to comply with the State’s procedural rule,” Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 , 488, 106 S.Ct. 2639 , 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986), and (2) that “errors at his trial ... worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with errors of constitutional dimensions,” United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 170, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wolfe v. Clarke
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.