Brown v. Watters’s Empirical Analysis
599 F.3d 602 · 2010
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Illinois Northern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Coleman v. Thompson · Murray v. Carrier · Schlup v. Delo · Addington v. Texas
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When preserved, meritorious claims of ineffective assistance can excuse default. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 , 488-89, 106 S.Ct. 2639 , 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986). A constitutional right to effective assistance must be the predicate to any such claim. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 , 752, 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). Mr. Brown provides no authority establishing a constitutional right to appellate counsel to challenge a civil commitment, [emphasis added] Where, as here, the right to counsel is a creation of state statute only, see Wis. Stat. § 980.03 (2)(a), it follows that denial of that right does not establish the necessary cause to excuse the default of any underlying claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ambrose v. Roeckeman
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.