Taylor v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 federal appellate ·

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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““silence on the part of the Appellate Division is more properly viewed as a decision not to sidestep the general rule requiring a contemporary objection than as a consideration and rejection of a procedurally waived claim. ... We are willing to assume that the state court felt that the merits were precluded by the procedural default in this case because the procedure is based on a well-known rule of trial practice, whose observance would have afforded the trial court an opportunity to avoid the problem of which the petitioner now complains.” Taylor v. Harris, 640 F.2d 1 , 2 n.3 (2d Cir. 1981). 2”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guichard v. Smith · Edwards v. Jones

2. ““Our position does not change because Taylor’s co-defendant Bernard Guiehard raised this claim in a post-trial motion to vacate judgment and on an appeal which ended with its being rejected without opinion by New York’s Appellate Division * * * * * * “. .. silence on the part of the Appellate Division is more properly viewed as a decision not to sidestep the general rule requiring a contemporary objection than as a consideration and rejection of a procedurally waived claim. We need not decide whether, in the absence of explanation, state court denial of post-conviction relief always implies that the merits of a claim were not reached because of a procedural default, cf. “Alburquerque v. Bara, 628 F.2d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 1980) .. . . ” Taylor v. Harris, supra, 640 F.2d at 2 n.3.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guichard v. Smith