Guilmette v. Howes’s Empirical Analysis
624 F.3d 286 · 2010
Citation profile
16 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Jalowiec v. Bradshaw (2011), Wogenstahl v. Mitchell (2012)
16 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 3304 · 28 U.S.C. § 3307
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · United States v. Frady · Harris v. Reed
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the petitioner fails to comply with a state procedural rule; (2) the state courts enforce the rule; (3) the state procedural rule is an adequate and independent state ground for denying review of a federal constitutional claim; and (4) the petitioner cannot show cause and prejudice excusing the default.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“look to the last reasoned state court opinion to determine the basis for the state court's rejection of [the] claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(3) alleges grounds for relief ... which could have been raised on appeal from the conviction and sentence or in a prior motion under this subchapter, unless the defendant demonstrates (a) good cause for failure to raise such grounds on appeal or in the prior motion and (b) actual prejudice from the alleged irregularities that support the claim for relief....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.