Scott Hill v. Patrick Glebe’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on 132 S. Ct. 1309 - Martinez v. Ryan · Detrich v. Ryan · Vang v. Nevada · Chaker v. Crogan · Dickens v. Ryan
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The federal courts can apply the procedural bar sua sponte. And the state's position that it must voluntarily raise the procedural bar before a petitioner can have a hearing under Martinez would lead to absurd results: The government could opt never to raise the procedural bar, effectively preventing a petitioner from ever developing a factual record to support his ineffective assistance claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roseberry v. Ryan“there is no merit to the government's argument that it can prevent Martinez from applying by simply refraining from raising the procedural bar.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roseberry v. Ryan
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.