Henry v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis
686 F.2d 311 · 1982
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably Ford v. Strickland (1983), 102 Ill. 2d 88 - People v. Owens (1984)
16 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Wainwright v. Sykes · Furman v. Georgia · Engle v. Isaac · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen · Town of Mashpee v. Mashpee Tribe
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If Florida law dealt with the merits of Henry's objection, whether or not there was a procedural default at trial under state law, then a federal habeas court must also determine the merits of the claim. Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 , 292 n. 9, 95 S.Ct. 886, 891 n. 9, 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975); Ratcliff v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 474 , 478 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 868, 100 S.Ct. 143, 62 L.Ed.2d 93 (1979).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Otherwise, federal habeas review would unjustly be denied a prisoner who has no way of proving that the state courts did consider the merits of his claim. This presumption does not unduly infringe upon the comity considerations underlying Sykes and Isaac , for all a state must do to preclude federal examination of an alleged error, contrary to state procedural rules, is to indicate that it has found the claim to be procedurally barred. The appellant asserts that we have circumvented Sykes and Isaac by finding that, in a completely unrelated case, Florida excused state procedural default. To the contrary, we do not mean to suggest that past excuse of a default in another case allows a federal court to excuse a default in a case where the state courts have not. Instead, we have looked to Florida law to determine what the state courts have done in the case before us. This is a necessary, accepted analysis in habeas cases. See, e.g., County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 149-51 , 99 S.Ct. 2213, 2220-22 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“where the state court's opinions do not make it clear that a point is not passed on due to failure to preserve it by timely objection, the state must be presumed to have applied its own rules to reach and reject the claim on the merits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mann v. Dugger
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.