Martinez v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
566 U.S. 1 · 2012
Citation profile
87 federal appellate · 8 district · 63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 360 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably Buck v. Davis (2017), 133 S. Ct. 1911 - Trevino v. Thaler (2013)
87 federal appellate · 8 district · 63 state decisions — followed in 25 states
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) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Anders v. California · Brady v. State of Maryland · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Gideon v. Wainwright
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 360 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]here, under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]nadequate assistance of counsel at initial-review collateral proceedings may establish cause for a prisoner's procedural default of a claim of ineffective assistance at trial.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Porter v. Zook · Zagorski v. Mays“[A] federal court will not review the merits of claims, including constitutional claims, that a state court declined to hear because the prisoner failed to abide by a state procedural rule.”
4 later decisions 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.