Pruitt v. Housewright’s Empirical Analysis
624 F.2d 851 · 1980
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Townsend v. Sain · Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation · Tate v. United States · Barrett v. United States · Hubert M. Morris v. D. W. Wyrick, Warden
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.
“(1) the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in a state hearing, (2) the state factual determination is not supported by the record, (3) the state fact finding procedure failed to provide full and fair hearings, (4) there is a substantial allegation of newly discovered evi dence, (5) material facts were not developed at the state court hearing, or (6) it appears the state fact trier did not afford the petitioner a full and fair hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jensen v. Satran“the petitioner's allegations, if proven, would establish the right to his release,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Byrd v. Armontrout
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.