Thacker v. Workman’s Empirical Analysis
678 F.3d 820 · 2012
Citation profile
18 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Colorado District Court)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Hill v. Lockhart · Lockett v. Ohio · Lockhart v. Fretwell
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The only way for Thacker to circumvent this anticipatory procedural bar is by making either of two alternate showings: he may demonstrate 'cause and prejudice' for his failure to raise the claim in his initial application for post-conviction relief, or he may show that failure to review his claim will result in a 'fundamental miscarriage of justice.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Grant v. Royal“Although the claim is technically unexhausted, it is beyond dispute that, were Cummings to attempt to now present the claim to the Oklahoma state courts in a second application for post-conviction relief, it would be deemed procedurally barred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Grant v. Royal“[W]e must acknowledge and apply the OCCA's procedural bar ruling, even though the OCCA, on an alternative basis, briefly addressed and rejected the merits of Thacker's claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bush v. Carpenter
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.