Romano v. Wyrick’s Empirical Analysis
681 F.2d 555 · 1982
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Rose v. Lundy · Steinberg v. Police Court of Albany, New York · State v. Dodson · Dunn v. Wyrick
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Romano should file a habeas petition either with the Court of Appeals of Missouri or the Supreme Court. (We think he should not be required to do both.) If this petition is rejected, he may then return to the federal district court and challenge his probation revocation in a new habeas petition.” Id. Id. at 557. 18 . The 1983 Committee Note to present Rule 91.01 states that the “source [of present Rule 91.01] is prior Rule 91.01.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rose adopted a total-exhaustion rule, requiring district courts to dismiss habeas petitions containing ... mixed claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Victor v. Hopkins
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.