Pudelski v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
576 F.3d 595 · 2009
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2022 · most notably Henness v. Bagley (2011), Akins v. Easterling (2011)
10 federal appellate ·
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
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2106 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Bagley · Coleman v. Thompson · United States v. Agurs
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.
“In situations in which a petitioner has failed to fairly present federal claims to the state courts, and a state procedural rule now prohibits the state court from considering them, the claims are considered procedurally defaulted. Martin v. Mitchell, 280 F.3d 594, 603 (6th Cir.2002). While in such situations the exhaustion requirement is technically satisfied because there are no longer any state remedies available to the petitioner, see Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 732 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991), the petitioner’s failure to have the federal claims considered in the state courts results in a procedural default of those claims that bars federal court review. Williams v. Anderson, 460 F.3d 789, 806 (6th Cir.2006).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(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.”
2 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.