Dunn v. Wyrick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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.

1. “The Supreme Court in Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 , 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1205 , 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982), adopted a total exhaustion rule, requiring district courts to dismiss habeas petitions containing such mixed claims. We do not apply the total exhaustion rule here to a habeas case in which the exhausted claims had been fully litigated and decided in the federal district court prior to the Lundy decision. In our view, it would constitute a great waste of judicial resources to apply Lun-dy retroactively and vacate the district court’s determination on the merits. The end result of such a retroactive application of Lundy could require the federal district court and this court to reconsider these same claims at another time. This we decline to do without an express direction from the Supreme Court.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Niziolek v. Ashe · State ex rel. Landmark KCI Bank v. Stuckey

2. “a district court is not required 'to conduct an evidentiary hearing on allegations which amount[ ] to no more than a bare contradiction of statements petitioner made when she [or he] pled guilty.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tran v. Al Lockhart

3. “subsequent presentation of conclusory allegations unsupported by specifics is subject to summary dismissal, as are contentions that in the face of the record are wholly incredible.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tran v. Al Lockhart